Skip to main content

Full text of "Three Hundred Years Of French Architecture 1494-1794"

See other formats

125 272 







R.A., M.A., LTIT.D., F.S.A., ETC. 







In this short introduction to a great subject I have 
addressed myself not to architects but to the general 
reader, and I have endeavoured to indicate the main 
lines of development of a movement in architecture of 
great and perennial interest. France is so rich in 
examples of the period illustrated that it is easy to miss 
the wood for the trees, and in order to understand 
French Neo-classic architecture it is essential to place 
it in relation to the history of the time and to regard it 
as a consecutive development from its tentative begin- 
nings at the end of the fifteenth century till its dissolu- 
tion at the end of the eighteenth. The short lists 
suggest some typical examples with approximate dates, 
but are in no sense whatever 'to be regarded as exhaus- 
tive. For detailed information I must refer students to 
my History of French Architecture, 1494-1661 (2 vols.) 
and History of French Architecture, 1661-1774 (2 vols.), 
published by Bell & Sons. 

July 1936 



I. The Italian Expedition, 1494. The first Italians 
in France. The Justes of Tours. II Rosso. Pri- 
maticcio. The Master-builders. The first quarter 
of the sixteenth century, a Period of Experiment. 
Withdrawal of the Italians. Examples i 

II . 1 547- 1 600 . Breakdown of the Medieval Tradition. 
The coming of the Architects. Philibert de POrme. 
His work and what he did for French Architecture. 
Jean Bullant and the Triad. Pierre Lescot and 
Jean Goujon. Check in French Architecture in the 
last quarter of the sixteenth century. Examples - 20 

III. 1600-1661. Henri IV. Encourages Architecture 
and the Arts. Town Planning Schemes. Paris. 
The " Porte et Place de France." De Brosse and 
the Luxembourg. Lemercier and Richelieu, the 
Town and Chateau. Le Muet and Tanlay. Fran- 
ois Mansart. Balleroy. Blois. Maisons. The 
Val-de-GrSce. Jesuit Architecture. Examples - 39 

IV. 1661-1708. Colbert's reorganization of the Arts. 
Le Vau and the transition. Coll6ge des Quatre 
Nations. Vaux-le-Vicomte. The completion of 
the Louvre. Bernini. Claude Perrault. Francois 
Blondel. The " Architectes du Roi." Bruand. 
Bullet. Andr61e Notre 59 




V. 1680-1708. Andr6 le Notre. The Tuileries. Ver- 
sailles. Chantilly. Jules Hardouin Mansart. The 
Bang's extravagance. Versailles. Maintenon. 
Marly. The Church of the Dome. Mansart's 
amazing success ------ 76 

VI. Mansart's Successors. L 'Assurance, le Roux, de 
Cotte. Aubert. Daviler. Desgodetz. Delamaire. 
The Hotel de Soubise. Boffrand's designs for 
Prince Bishops and Electors. Aubert and Chan- 
tilly. Oppenord. The CuviK6s. Servandoni. 
Etere. His work at Nancy ----- 94 

VII. The Gabriels, Jacques Jules. The Bridge and the 
Evch6 at Blois. Rennes, the H6tel de ViUe. Bor- 
deaux. Place de la Bourse. La Rochelle, the 
Cathedral. Ange Jacques Gabriel. The com- 
petition for the Place de la Concorde. The Ecole 
Militaire. The Petit Trianon. The last of the old 
R6gime. Soufflot and the Panth6on. Contant 
d'lvry. Patte. Mique. Louis. The end of a 
great period. Examples - 108 

[. . i 


Valen?ay - Frontispiece 


Chambord. The Staircase x 

La Rochefoucauld ~--.--.-~i 
Tomb of the Children of Charles VIII, Tours - - 4 
Blois. The Staircase (Francois I) - - - - 5 
Fontainebleau. The Pavilion ----- 8 
Villandry --------9 

Chambord. The CMteau 12 

Fontainebleau. Bassin des carpes - - - 13 

Manoir d'Ango - - - - - - - - 16 

Azay-le-Rideau - - - - - - - -17 

Dijon. Eglise S. Michel ------ 20 

Toulouse. Hotel d'Ass6zat ----- 21 

Anet ----------24 

Chenonceaux --------25 

Ecouen ---------28 

Chantilly. The CMtelet ------ 29 

Rouen. Monument to Georges d'Amboise 33 

Rouen. Monument to Louis de Br6ze 33 

Lisieux. The Ev6ch6 ------ 40 

Place des Vosges -------41 

Val-de-Grace (Interior) 44 

Maisons --45 

Balleroy ^--------48 




Blois. North Wing -------49 

Paris. Mus6e Carnavalet ------ 52 

Poitiers. Lyc6e Henri IV - - - - - 53 

Caen. Notre Dame de la Gloriette 56 

Vaux-le-Vicomte. The Gardens " ~ ~ - 57 

Vaux-le-Vicomte. The Chateau 60 

Les Invalides ------- - 61 

Institut de France -------64 

The Louvre. East Front 65 

Versailles. The Chapel ------ ^5 

The Petit Trianon 77 

Maintenon. The Aqueduct ----- 84 

Versailles. The Orangery 85 

Les Invalides. Church of the Dome 88 

Place Venddme 89 

H6tel de Soubise (Exterior) 96 

Hotel de Soubise (Interior) 07 

Chantilly. The Stables Ioo 

St. Sulpice - - IOI 

Nancy. The Hemicycle IO 4 

Montpellier. The Chateau d'Eau - 105 

Bordeairx. Hdtel de la Bourse 108 

LaRocheUe. The Cathedral IO9 

Ecole Militaire 

The Madeleine - 




The Italian Expedition, 1494. The first Italians in France. The 
Justes of Tours. II Rosso. Primaticcio. The Master-builders. 
The first quarter of the sixteenth century, a Period of Experi- 
ment. Withdrawal of the Italians. Examples. 

In the study of Architecture it has to be borne in 
mind that permanent developments, as apart from 
fashions of the day, are the result of deep-seated causes 
that may lie far back in history, and are governed in the 
long run by national instincts and temperament. If one 
can only carry one's researches deep enough, it will be 
found that through all the successive phases of any 
national architecture, there is a continuous trend in one 
direction, however much the ultimate result may d : ffer 
from its first beginnings. The idea that it is possible 
to break entirely with the past, turn one's back on it and 
begin again, as if it had never existed, is historically un- 
sound, and movements which are based on this fallacy 
are foredoomed to failure. That this is so, is shown 
more clearly in architecture than in any of the arts, 
because of all the arts architecture is most closely asso- 



ciated with the intimate life of the people that produces 
it. The cosmopolitan ideal is mischievous and futile, 
and so long as nations preserve their individuality, so 
long will that individuality be stamped on the best of 
their architecture. For instance, there have always 
been definite and unmistakable differences between the 
architecture of France and of England, of Italy, Spain 
and Germany. In the sixteenth century a deliberate 
attempt was made to italianize French architecture. 
Yet the final result in the latter part of the eighteenth 
century was essentially French not Italian, a rather 
austere version of Neo-classic, when Italy had long been 
revelling in the orgies of the Baroque. 

In the three hundred years of French architecture 
with which I am dealing in this short summary, the 
dominating factors were not only " the new fashion," 
as it was called in England, brought from Italy, but the 
national instincts left by medieval architecture, and the 
temperament of the French people themselves. The 
French have always been fine craftsmen, with an irresist- 
ible feeling for form. They possess an alert and lively 
intelligence, quick to pick up fresh motives, and the 
capacity to work those motives out in their own way, so 
that though they may have been of alien origin, in due 



course these motives become characteristically French, 
The admirable Gothic architecture of France that sprang 
into brilliant life at the end of the twelfth century, and 
superseded the last survival of Roman architecture, was 
probably due to the influence of the Crusades, to what 
the French knights had seen in the East ; but the 
French were not the only Crusaders. Other nations 
had joined in the Crusades, yet their versions of Gothic 
were very different. The Gothic of Germany, of Spain, 
of Italy is as different from that of France as a 
Frenchman is from a German, an Italian or a Spaniard. 
The history of the rise and development of Renaissance 
architecture in France illustrates the same inevitable 
tendency. New motives of design were introduced into 
France at the end of the fifteenth century. The French 
took these motives, worked on them in their own way 
and, after one hundred years of experiment, developed 
them into a true vernacular architecture of their own. 
It was once the fashion to deride the Renaissance and, 
indeed, Neo-classic architecture in general as an exotic. 
In a sense it was so, but that was not the whole story. 
The causes that govern the development of architecture 
lie deeper than this in countries with a long tradition of 
civilization, and when such a country has absorbed and 


assimilated a fresh motive, that in its turn becomes its 
national method of expression. 

One more word of caution is necessary in regard to 
Renaissance architecture. It used to be treated as an 
isolated movement of the fifteenth and sixteenth cen- 
turies, out of relation both to what went before and 
what followed after. Enthusiastic writers, such as 
Palustre, have dealt with the architecture of Frangois I 
as if that and that alone constituted the Renaissance in 
France, but that architecture was, in fact, only the first 
experimental stage in a movement which did not reach 
its complete development till more than two hundred 
years later. 

Medievalism as a living force died with Louis XL 
His policy was reversed by his successor, and the end of 
the fifteenth century saw the first of those wild adven- 
tures in Italy, which brought France out of her seclusion 
into the arena of European politics. The Italian expe- 
ditions were politically a failure, yet their indirect effect 
on France was far-reaching and permanent, because 
they introduced to the court and aristocracy of France 
an art and a culture, the existence of which they had 
hardly realized before the disastrous enterprise of 
Charles VIIL Here and there Italian artists had 




appeared in France before the end of the fifteenth 
century, and the earliest complete example of Italian art 
in France is the fine monument of Charles, count of 
Maine, in the cathedral of Le Mans, supposed to have 
been executed by Laurana about the year 1475, but the 
real starting point of the new movement was the Italian 
expedition of 1494, Charles VIII entered Rome on 
New Year's Eve of that year, but two years later the 
French army was driven out of Italy. 

Charles died in 1498, but he had done his best to 
import Italian art into France. Tapestries, books, 
pictures and statuary were sent from Naples to Lyons 
and thence to Amboise, and among the artists brought 
back from Italy were Fra Giocondo, the architect and 
commentator on Vitruvius, Dominique de Cortonne 
and Guido Paganino. Dominique de Cortonne (il 
Boccador) was a maker of models for buildings and in 
1530 was paid 900 livres for making models of Cham- 
bord, and the castles of Ardres and Tournai, and it seems 
that these were not designed by him but were made 
to the instructions of higher authority. A certain Luca 
Becjeane, described as a " deviseur des Bastimens," 
appears to have had no opportunity of exercising his 
skill on anything but aviaries and birdcages, and to a 


certain extent the first importation of Italian art was a 
false start. The work of the first batch of Italian artists 
who came to France was, in fact, limited to ornament. 
There is little trace of any serious attempt to introduce 
Italian architecture as apart from ornament into 
France, and even the " amateur du premier rang/' 
Fran9ois I, never got far beyond ornament in spite of 
his passion for building. The Justes, a family of 
Florentine sculptors settled at Tours, confined them- 
selves to monuments and tombs such as the beautiful 
monument to the children of Charles VIII in the 
cathedral at Tours, and the monument to William 
James, canon of Dol (1502). Louis XII, " father of 
his people/' was not greatly interested in the arts, but 
Fran9ois I who succeeded him in 1515 was an enthusi- 
astic amateur, and on his accession there was an irrup- 
tion of Italian artists into France, some of them good, 
some of them the failures of Italy, but with the solitary 
exception of Serlio none of them architects. II Rosso, 
the red-haired artist, whom Vasari admired so much, 
carried out some remarkable decorations in the 
gallery of Franfois I at Fontainebleau in stucco and 
painting, and Primaticcio who succeeded him was 
a considerable artist though not very much is now 



known of him, and he undoubtedly destroyed some of 
il Rosso 's work at Fontainebleau to make room for his 
own. Francesco Primaticcio had been sent to Francois 
I by Federigo, duke of Mantua, in 1531. Vasari says 
that in 1540 Francois sent him to Rome to collect 
antiques and that Primaticcio brought back with him 
to France 125 pieces. It seems that il Rosso and 
Primaticcio were the only Italian artists of something 
like first-rate ability that the French kings were able 
to secure. The best known of the Italian craftsmen 
was a de la Robbia, " Maistre Hierosme de la Robie, 
esmailleur et sculpteur Florentin," who came to 
France in 1527. In 1535 he was paid a salary of 
240 livres a year, and appears in the Royal building 
accounts for 1537 as receiving 250 livres for a great 
roundel of terracotta and enamel over the entrance 
gateway of Fontainebleau the roundel was adorned 
with a grand " Chappeau de Triomphe " surrounded 
by leaves, flowers and fruits of all kinds, melons, 
pineapples, pomegranates, grapes, poppies, artichokes, 
lemons, oranges, peaches, frogs, lizards, snails, and 
" plusieurs autres," so runs the entry in the comptes for 
a roundel similar to those at Hampton Court, but larger 
and enamelled in colours, blue, white, yellow, and green 


in the de la Robbia manner. In 1528-1530 Jerome de 
la Robbia was at work on the Chateau de Madrid in the 
Bois de Boulogne at Paris, one of the most famous 
buildings of the time, destroyed in 1795, and it appears 
that he was one of the contractors for the masonry. In 
1550 de TOrme added an upper storey and removed 
some if not all the terracotta ornaments as unsuitable 
with masonry. De la Robbia was so disgusted that he 
left Paris in 1553 and did not return till 1560, when 
Primaticcio had superseded de TOrme. He is last heard 
of in 1565 and died two years later. 

The one Italian architect who came to France in the 
time of Fran?ois I was Sebastian Serlio, but he seems 
to have been singularly unsuccessful. He may have 
designed the Chateau of Ancy-le-Franc, and that " aile 
de la belle chemin^e " which is the best piece of archi- 
tecture at Fontainebleau, but Serlio was not happy in 
France. In the dedication of his " Extraordinario 
Libro " of architecture to Henri II, published at Lyons 
in 1551, he says that he found himself in the company 
of " beasts rather than men at Fontainebleau/' 

The fact was that in spite of royal patronage, and 
the costly efforts made by Francois I himself and his 
courtiers to introduce Italian architecture, the Italians 





were up against an invincible obstacle in the tradition 
of the French master-builders, and the fixed determina- 
tion of the latter not to let any foreigner into their 
monopoly of building, for the guilds were incredibly 
arbitrary and exclusive. The enthusiasm for this new 
manner imported from Italy was confined to the King 
and the amateurs of the Court, and the outlook of the 
French people was still medieval. For the first quarter 
of the sixteenth century the master-builders, the le 
Bretons, the Chambiges, Pierre Nepveu "dit Trin- 
queau," the Grappins, the Bacheliers of Toulouse, 
steeped in their inherited traditions and hostile to any 
other, were in complete control of all building opera- 
tions. Proud of their skill in masonry, they were taking 
liberties with building with disastrous results, such as 
the failure at Beauvais, where the great tower and the 
fleche that Jean Vast had reared 500 feet above the 
crossing of the cathedral, collapsed on Ascension Day 
1 573 , within twenty years of its having been built. The 
church of Niort built in 1535 simply fell down in 1910. 
With all their amazing skill in stone-cutting the master- 
builders possessed little scientific knowledge of con- 
struction, and they had, in fact, reached their limit 
when the new manner was thrust upon them by the 



Court in the early part of the sixteenth century. Faced 
with an alien manner which they did not understand 
and in their hearts thoroughly disliked, there was 
nobody to guide them but lordly amateurs, such, for 
example, as the Cardinal Georges d'Amboise, the 
builder of Gaillon, and, a little later on, the Court 
financiers, such as Thomas Bohier who built Chenon- 
ceaux (1513-24), Gilles Berthelot who built Azay-le- 
Rideau, or de Semblan9ay, who, though 82 years old, 
was hung at Montfaucon in 1527. These men were 
enamoured of the highly ornamented buildings they had 
seen or heard of in Italy, such as the Certosa of Pavia, 
and, as is the way of enthusiastic amateurs, mistook 
them for architecture. The result was that the French 
master-builders went on building great houses according 
to their own tradition, and the Italian ornamentalists 
covered the buildings with ornament in the manner of 
their country, the only manner that they understood. 

The state of affairs in the building trades after the 
Italian expedition and, indeed, till the coming of the 
architects in the middle of the sixteenth century, was 
chaotic. The French builders knew their trade as 
masons, and were capable of working on the traditional 
lines handed on from father to son. Into the midst of 



these excellent men, there were suddenly thrust in the 
early years of the sixteenth century Italian ornamental- 
ists, who understood French architecture just as little as 
the French builders understood Italian, and the result 
was only Italian ornament applied to medieval buildings, 
which, so far as architecture was concerned, could per- 
fectly well have done without it. Moreover whatever 
the " nouveaux riches " and obsequious courtiers might 
do, some at any rate of the owners of great ancestral 
houses were not so enamoured of the new fashions as to 
be ready to pull down their houses, and rebuild in what 
was supposed to be the Italian manner. When the 
chateau of la Rochefoucauld was being rebuilt, 1522-35, 
the thirteenth-century keep and the round towers at 
the angles were left undisturbed, and at Chateaubriand 
Jean de Laval preserved the donjon when he built 
himself a new house early in the sixteenth century. 
Noble owners had no objections to Italian ornament so 
long as it was a surface affair and did not quarrel with 
their engrained conservatism, but so far as building was 
concerned, they stood by the old ways. 

Italian artists of reputation were brought to France, 
but, except il Rosso and Primaticcio, they did little or 
nothing in France. Cellini left the country in a rage, 

Leonardo was too old, Andrea del Sarto, having obtained 
leave of absence in 1519 on condition that he duly 
returned to Paris, broke his engagement when he found 
himself in Florence and never came back, Serlio was 
seldom if ever employed, and the rest of the Italians 
were the failures of Italy. So the master-builders con- 
tinued to build in their traditional manner, and the 
Italian ornamentalists were let loose with their medal- 
lions and arabesques, and their stucco decorations, such 
as the work of il Rosso in the gallery at Fontainebleau. 
Chambord, that strange fantastic building in the dreary 
woodland of the Sologne, is a characteristic example. 
II Boccador, the Italian " menuisier," supplied the 
model and Pierre Trinqueau built the chateau. Yet no 
building of the time is more completely French, with its 
vast conical roofs, its angle towers and its centre pavilion 
with its lofty lantern. The famous double staircase is 
not Italian, but an ingenious development of the 
medieval " vis " or newel staircase. Yet Chambord 
was built fifty years after Albert! had designed the 
Church of S. Andrea at Mantua, and almost in the 
year that Peruzzi was building the Palazzo Albergati at 
France, though ahead of England, was nearly three- 



quarters of a century behind Italy in reaching any real 
understanding of the new manner of architecture, and 
if one considers the methods of building at the time, it 
is rather wonderful that the French builders did as well 
as they did. All they had to work to was a model, 
usually prepared by an Italian in the case of the royal 
houses, and liberally interpreted, and a " devis " or 
specification drawn up by the King's " varlet de 
chambre " (private secretary), who in the reign of 
Fran?ois I rejoiced in the melodious name of Flori- 
mond de Champeverne, and probably knew as little 
about architecture as his royal master. The building of 
Fontainebleau was characteristic of the absence of any 
coherent organization. In 1528 Fran9ois decided to 
rebuild and greatly enlarge Fontainebleau. A long 
" devis " or specification was drawn up by Florimond, 
but it is a description of the work to be done, not a 
detail specification. No reference is made to any 
drawings ; and when a wall was to be carried on corbels, 
the devis prescribed that it was to be built " ainsi 
qu'elle le soulloient d'anciennete." No fixed contract 
was made for the work, but prices were agreed with the 
trades, and when the work was completed it was meas- 
ured and priced " according to the use and custom of 


Paris " by two master tradesmen in the presence of 
Florimond and two others. Gilles le Breton, "ma9on, 
tailleur de pierres, demeurant a Paris/' contracted for 
walling, brick or stone, at 50 sols (sous) the " toise " or 
fathom ; payments were dribbled out to le Breton by 
a Commissioner of building, and the total amount paid 
him for his work from 1528-34 was 67,042 livres, 7 sols. 
No architect had yet appeared to check the measure- 
ments or inspect the work. It is no wonder that the 
King was robbed right and left, and it appears from the 
account of de TOrme that the builders built so badly 
that the royal houses sometimes tumbled down, and 
that they robbed the King without the least compunc- 
tion. Moreover, Fran9ois himself was so unstable and 
egotistical that, having started on a scheme with wild 
enthusiasm, he seldom if ever carried it through, and 
lost interest in his buildings before they were up. 
Large and costly buildings at Blois, Chambord, Fon~ 
tainebleau, St. Germain, Villers-Cotterets, la Muettc 
and the chateau de Madrid followed in quick succes- 
sion, and du Cerceau, writing a few years later, says 
that some were already ruinous because the King would 
not take the trouble to keep them up. In spite of the 
efforts of successive kings Charles VIII, Louis XII 



and Francois I Italian architecture was still a costly 
exotic, an affair of the Court, disregarded and disliked 
by the people. About 1532 a famous shipbuilder, 
Jacques Ango, built himself a country house at Varange- 
ville near Dieppe. There is some Italian detail here and 
there, but the charm of the manoir d'Ango is its tradi- 
tional French form, and its use of local materials, flints 
and clunch ; and this delightful building represents the 
French people of that time far more than the lordly 
palaces of Frangois I and his courtiers. 

The graceful detail, the picturesque grouping, the 
wealth of their historical associations, their siting on the 
banks of one of the most beautiful rivers in Europe, 
have made the chateaux of the Loire famous through- 
out the world, and have led people to regard them as 
the full and final expression of the Renaissance in 
France. This is a dangerous delusion, because at the 
root of it lies the fatal misconception that ornament is 
architecture. A critical study of these buildings will 
show that they are not the last word of a consummate 
art, but the rather naive efforts of beginners striving to 
express themselves in an unfamiliar language. The 
reign of Franfois I covers that cycle of thirty years in 
which, as ML Lemonnier says, " tant de choses furent 



essay ees, abandonees, combattues, admirees " with no 
definite advance in architecture. ". . . tout se juxtapose, 
ou se mele genie franais, genie du moyen age, genie 
Italien, genie de Tantiquit." The results are often 
fascinating in the caprice and fantasy of their detail 
those capitals with stag's heads, for example, in the 
chapel of St. Saturnin at Fontainebleau, and there is no 
denying the perennial charm of this strange chapter of 
uncertain aim and experiment, in its romance, and 
even innocence so entirely removed from the conscious 
and sophisticated effort of much that poses as art at the 
present time. Yet out of this confusion of the sixteenth 
century, there will rise a definite development in 
which " la tradition du moyen age et meme Pesprit du 
temps de Francois I disparaitra d^finitivement devant 
le pur classicisme," 1 not very pure classic, it is true, by 
the standards of Greece, yet a genuine reconstitution of 
architecture in terms of Neo-classic. 



The dates, where given, are the approximate dates either of 
the beginning of new buildings or of additions and alterations 
to existing buildings in the new manner. The dates must be 
1 Lcmonnicr, Hist de France, ed, Lavisse, vol. i, 338. 





taken to indicate the period rather than the exact year, and in 
many cases are conjectural only. 

Domestic Architecture. 

Amboise (Indre et Loire), 1496. 

Gaillon (Eure), 1501 (destroyed). 

Maintenon (Eure-et-Loire), 1503. 

Chenonceaux (Indre-et-Loire), 1513. 

Blois (Loire), 1515. 

Azay-le-Rideau (Indre-et-Loire), 1516-1524. 

Chambord (Loir-et-Cher), 1519. 

Fontainebleau (Seine-et-Marne), 1528 (begun). 

Villers-Cotterets (Aisne), 1532. 

Chantilly (Oise), 1527. 

Chateau de Madrid (destroyed 1795), 1528. 

La Muette (destroyed). 

Chateaudun (Eure-et-Loire). 

St. Maur-les-Foss6s (destroyed). 

Hotel de Semblan9ay, Tours. 

La Rochefoucauld (Charente), 1522-35. 

Ecouen (Seine-et-Oise), 1532. 

St. Germain-en-Laye (Seine-et-Oise), 1532. 

Manoir d'Ango (Seine Inferieure), 1532, 

H6tel Gouin, Tours 

Hotel Pinc6, Angers 

Hotel Lallemant, Bourges 

H6tel Cujas, Bourges 
H6tel Bourgtheroulde, Rouen 
Hotel d'Ecoville, Caen, 1538 
House of Agnes Sorel, Orleans 
BAA. [ 17 ] 

about 1530-50. 


Villandry (Indre-et-Loire), 1532. 

Fontaine-Henri (Calvados), 1537. 

Valen?ay (Indre), 1540. 

La Dalbade, Toulouse 1 about IS 

Hotel du Vieux Raisin, Toulouse J 

Ancy-le- Franc (Yonne), 1537-42. 

Bournazel (Aveyron), 1545. 

Beaugency (Loiret) Hotel de Ville, 1520. 

Orl6ans, House of Francois I, 1536-50. 

H6tel de Ville, 1530, 

Hotel de la Vieille Intendance. 


St. Pierre, Caen, choir, 1518. 

St. Martin, Pontoise, 1525 (Seine-et-Oise). 

St. Maclou, Pontoise. 

St. Gervais, Gisors, 1525 (Eure). 

St. Eustache, Paris, 1532. 

St. Etienne du Mont, Paris, choir, 1517. 

The organ gallery, Limoges Cathedral, 1533. 

St. Pierre, Coutances (Manche), 1500-50. 

Tilli&res, 1534 (Eure). 

Organ gallery, Caudebec (Seine Inf6rieure), 1559. 

St. R6mi, Dieppe, choir, 1522. 

St. Michel, Dijon, 1537. 

Brou, 1513 (Bourgogne). 

Auxerre, S. Pierre. 

St. Vulfran, Abbeville door, 1550. 



Beauvais, transepts, 1510-50. 
Rodez, the fa9ade of cathedral, 1530. 

Tombs and Monuments. 

Tomb of Charles, count of Maine. Le Mans, 1475. 

(1) Children of Charles VIII, Tours, 1506. 

(2) William James, canon of Dol (Ille-et-Vilaine), 1507. 
Monuments of Louis XII, St. Denis, 1516. 
Cardinal Georges d'Amboise, Rouen, 1520. 

Rene II, Nancy, 1520. 
Frangois II, duke of Brittany, Nantes. 
Philibert le Beau, Brou, 1526. 
Louis de Brez6, Rouen, 1536. 

All dates approximate only. 

Chap. I. Illustrations. 

La Rochefoucauld. 

Tomb of children of Charles VIII, Tours. 
Blois, the staircase (Frangois I). 
Chambord, the chateau, 
do. the staircase. 
Manoir d'Ango. 
Fontainebleau, the Pavilion. 

do. bassin des carpes. 




Breakdown of the Medieval Tradition. The coming of the 
Architects. Philibert de VOrme. His work and what he did for 
French Architecture. Jean Bullant and the Triad. Pierre 
Lescot and Jean Goujon. Check in French Architecture in the 
last quarter of the sixteenth century. Examples. 

So far we have not got very far along the road, but 
in this fifty years of experiment the French crafts- 
men had learnt the details of Italian ornament. They 
could carve salamanders, swans transfixed with arrows, 
porcupines, fleur de lys, ermines and heads of Roman 
emperors as well as the Italians themselves, and the 
Italian artists fade away. The great tradition of French 
medieval sculpture was still alive ; indeed, the French 
never lost their grasp of it, but the master-builders still 
clung to their traditional ways, still built mainly by 
rule of thumb, with results such as the failures at Beau- 
vais and Niort. It was time that some method and 
more accurate knowledge was introduced into building. 




Moreover, the Humanists of the Renaissance had 
brought about an enthusiasm for classical scholarship 
so genuine that it had got beyond mere detail, and was 
beginning to colour the whole of life, and led to a search 
in the past for a technique that should give expression 
in architecture to the enthusiasm of the Humanists in 
letters. Specialists in design began to disengage them- 
selves from the master-builders, and for the first time 
there appeared in France the architect as we now un- 
derstand him, the professional designer of buildings, as 
apart from the contractor who designed his buildings 
on traditional lines as he went along, or did not design 
them on paper at all. 

By the middle of the sixteenth century a different 
class of men had appeared in France, men who devoted 
themselves to the study of architecture, and in some 
cases had qualified themselves by study of the anti- 
quities of Rome on the spot. These men were essen- 
tially artists, not master-builders. They wfere pioneers 
in what was to then! an intensely fascinating art, an art 
which they approached with a zeal and ardour of con- 
viction not inferior in its way to that which inspired 
Ronsard and du Bellay in literature, or Etienne and 
Amyot in scholarship. Such a man was Philibert de 



rOrme, in some ways the most remarkable of that 
brilliant group of artists who appeared on the stage 
after the death of Francois I, and held it with varying 
fortunes for the next fifty years. 

De rOrme was born at Lyons about the year 1515, 
and there are still some fragments of his work in 
that city, including one of those " trompes," an ingen- 
ious kind of vaulting over the re-entering angles of 
buildings, for which de TOrme took great credit to 
himself. When about 20 years old he had the good 
fortune to catch the eye of the Cardinal de Sainte Croix, 
while drawing and measuring a triumphal arch in 
Rome. The Cardinal introduced him to the Pope, who 
gave him some little work, but de FOrme returned to 
Lyons in 1536, made the acquaintance of the Cardinal 
Jean du Bellay, and through him came under the notice 
of the Court and of the Dauphin (afterwards Henri II), 
and began a career the success of which was unbroken 
till the crash of his fortunes that followed the death of 
Henri II. In due course he became abb6 of Ivry and 
Noyon and a canon of Notre Dame in Paris. His 
enemies stated that he had been in receipt of 20,000 
livres a year when in the King's service, to which de 
TOrme indignantly replied that he had been actually 



out of pocket. He declined to assist the monks at 
Noyon when they wished to rebuild their abbey. On 
the other hand, he left a provision in his will for his 
illegitimate son and daughter. 

De TOrme seems to have gained the favour of Henri 
II during the lifetime of Francois I. The King and his 
son hated each other, and probably for this reason 
Frangois never employed de TOrme ; but after the 
accession of Henri II, de TOrme won the patronage of 
Diane de Poitiers, the all-powerful mistress of the King, 
and as long as the King lived his position was assured. 
His first work was St. Maur-les-Fosses for the Cardinal 
Jean du Bellay , on the banks of the Marne near Charen- 
ton, a great house with an internal court. De TOrme was 
fresh from Italy when he designed the house, and here 
he introduced the loggias with columns and arcades that 
he had seen in the palaces of Rome. 1 He designed part 
of Meudon, and was employed on the various royal 
palaces, such as Fontainebleau, Villers-Cotterets, and 
St. Germain-en-Laye. In 1552 he was entrusted with 
the design of the great house of Anet on the Dure for 
Diane de Poitiers. Here he introduced many of his 

1 St. Maur-les-Fossfe came into the hands of Catherine de M6dicis and was 
sold to her creditors on her death in 1589. It was destroyed before the 
French Revolution. 



ingenious devices, some from the antique, such as a 
crypto-porticus on the garden side, a circular chapel 
and other elaborate details which would have been 
better omitted, but the design of the building, if over- 
elaborate, was serious, and considered as a whole, it 
was a genuine attempt at rhythmical and symmetrical 
composition, different in kind from charming but 
haphazard buildings, such as Azay-le-Rideau and 

Henri II succeeded to the throne in 1547 and at once 
appointed de TOrme architect at Fontainebleau, the 
Chateau de Madrid, Villers-Cotterets, St. Germain-en- 
Laye, and Yerre, and in 1550 de I'Orme, now a great 
personage, appears in the accounts as " noble personne, 
maistre Philibert de TOrme, abbe d'lvry, de Saint 
Barth&emy de Noyon, et de Geveton, conseiller, 
aumonier ordinaire du Roi, architecte du dit Seigneur, 
commissaire ordonne et deput sur le fait de ses basti- 
ments et edifices/' but in 1559 Henri II was accidentally 
killed at a court tournament, thrust through the eye 
by the lance of Montgomery, and with the death of the 
King de FOrme's fortunes crashed. The new King 
Fran9ois II dismissed him from all his appointments 
except the tomb of Fran9ois I at St. Denis. With him 






were dismissed his brother Jean, " maistre des ceuvres 
de ma^onnerie en France," and Jean Bullant, and the 
entire control of the royal buildings was handed over to 
Primaticcio, who was not an architect at all. Being now 
in disgrace, with nothing to do, de TOrme began his 
gigantic book on architecture, which, though " fort in- 
digeste et confuse/' as he said himself of Vitruvius, was 
the first really practical modern treatise on architecture. 
Much of what he wrote was the result of his personal 
experience and observation, and dealt with problems of 
construction, stereotomy and the properties of materials. 
A sense of personal grievance underlies every page of 
his book, and a temper, always under imperfect control, 
blazes up in the concluding paragraphs in which he 
describes, first, the good architect, and then the bad one, 
the man without hands, blind, stupid and incompetent. 
De POrme was given one more chance after his fall. 
Catherine de Medicis employed him on a vast scheme 
of enlargement of Chenonceaux, begun by Bohier be- 
tween 1513 and 1 524. The only part built of de POrme's 
design was the gallery 180 feet long, which was never 
completed. His last and most important work was the 
Tuileries, which, with all its faults in detail, was the 
largest and most complete palace designed by any one 



man since the palaces of Imperial Rome, Its general 
plan was an oblong about 807 feet long by 500 feet wide, 
with its long axis at right angles to the river. This was 
divided into three courts, and the general fa?ade was to 
consist of a ground floor with a loggia and arcade, above 
which was an elaborate attic storey. The Tuileries was 
burnt to the ground by the Commune in 1871. It was 
never a very satisfactory building, as de POrme's suc- 
cessors paid little attention to the original design. 

De TOrme died on a Sunday evening in his canon's 
house at Paris, on January 8, 1570. He had played a 
great part, written an immense book, and designed some 
of the most notable buildings in France of the middle 
part of the sixteenth century. What place does he hold 
among famous architects ? His own opinion was that 
he had simply re-established architecture in France. 
" Have I not also," he says, " done a great service in 
having brought into France the fashion of good building, 
done away with barbarous manners and great gaping 
joints in masonry, shown to all how one should observe 
the measures of architecture, and made the best work- 
men of the day, as they admit themselves ? " His 
enemies asserted that de POrme had done very well for 
himself, but de POrme declared that he had saved the 



King untold sums and was in fact out of pocket through 
his efforts. He did actually revolutionize building con- 
struction in France, and here he stands apart from his 
contemporaries, for Lescot, the elegant Court gentle- 
man, left these vulgar matters to his builders and 
assistants, and Bullant, fine artist as he was, approached 
architecture too exclusively from the aesthetic stand- 
point. As a constructor, de POrme was far ahead of his 
time. As an architect he occupies a different position. 
His art was never spontaneous. It smelt of the lamp, 
even of the spade and shovel. Through want of imagin- 
ation he allowed himself to be entangled in details, but 
though not a great artist, he played a very important 
part in the development of French architecture and a 
perennial interest attaches to his strong and unusual 
personality. It was by his forceful individuality, rather 
than by his art, that de POrme won and has maintained 
his place among the famous Frenchmen of his time. 

Jean Bullant has been described by M. Lemonnier as 
" un de FOrme un peu amoindri." So far as I read 
him, Bullant was nothing of the sort. In their life, 
their work, and their temperament, Bullant and de 
TOrme were quite unlike each other, and the descrip- 
tion does less than justice to the most daring thinker 



in architectural design that France produced in the 
sixteenth century. 

Bullant was born at Ecouen somewhere about 1515, 
and Ecouen was the house of that great nobleman, and 
arrogant, obstinate and unpleasant person, Anne, due de 
Mfontmorency, Constable of France, who after a long 
and eventful life was killed fighting at St. Denis in 1566. 
But with all his faults Montmorency was a lordly patron 
of the arts. In his great house at Ecouen he employed 
Bullant, Jean Goujon, Bernard Palissy, Abaquesne, the 
potter of Rouen, and the Lepots, the glass painters of 
Beauvais. Bullant lived among artists and on friendly 
terms with all, unlike de POrme who devoted his atten- 
tion to the Great Persons of the Court and abused other 
artists impartially. 

At Ecouen Bullant added some very remarkable 
frontispieces to the existing building between 1540 and 
1 550. His next work was at Fere-en-Tardenois (Aisne) , 
where the Constable possessed a fine castle of the thir- 
teenth century. Opposite the castle was a plateau 
admirably adapted for the manoeuvres of troops, but it 
was separated by a steep ravine. Nothing daunted, the 
Constable called in Bullant to throw a great viaduct, 
carrying two galleries, 200 feet long, across the ravine 





from the castle to the Place d'armes ; on the whole, 
about the best thing Bullant ever did. 

In 1557, Bullant was appointed a controller of build- 
ing operations at a salary of 1200 livres a year, " comme 
personnage grandement experiments en fait d'architec- 
ture," and was employed in 1560 by the Constable to 
build the Chatelet or Petit Chateau at Chantilly. In 
1570 he was appointed to succeed de TOrme at the Tuil- 
eries and at St. Maur. At the Tuileries he built addi- 
tions to the north and south of de POrme's building, 
with fa?ades of two storeys and an elaborate attic storey. 
The design was an improvement on that of de TOrme, 
but the Tuileries could never have been a satisfactory 
building. Catherine de Medicis was always in debt and 
constantly interfered with the design, and the additions 
made by du Cerceau, le Vau and D'Orbay in the next 
one hundred years made bad worse, due, as Blondel 
said, " to the fury with which architects are devoured, 
of wishing to build something new, when all they have 
to do is to imitate what is there," a criticism that applies 
to much modern architecture as well. 

In 1572 Catherine de Medicis abandoned the Tuil- 
eries, in consequence of the prediction of a fortune- 
teller that she would perish under the ruins of a house 



and that St. Germain would be fatal to her. The 
Tuileries was in the parish of St. Germain PAuxerrois, 
and that was enough for Catherine, who stopped the 
building of the Tuileries, and bought and rebuilt the 
Hotel de Soissons in the parish of St. Eustache. 

There is only one more important building which 
may have been designed by Bullant, and that is the 
Chapelle Funeraire built at Anet after the death of 
Diane de Poitiers (1566) and completed before 1577. It 
is a fine simple design, better and more mature than 
any of de FOrme's work at Anet, and remarkable for its 
resolute refusal of all merely technical ornament in the 
interior. It is not known who was the architect, but 
Jean Bullant was, I think, the only man of his time who 
could have designed it. He died in 1578, a month 
after the death of Lescot. 

Of the famous " Triad/' de 1'Orme, Bullant and 
Lescot, Bullant was the most original and the finest 
artist. He started with less advantages than either 
Lescot or de POrme, but his natural genius carried him 
to a point never reached by either. Lescot, even if he 
designed his own buildings, as to which I am very 
sceptical, was uninspired and his work was only saved 
by Goujon's sculpture, and by a precision of execution 



which, I am convinced, should also be attributed to 
Goujon. De FOrme, a sincere student of architecture 
but a pedant, mistook knowledge for imagination. He 
fell into the pitfall which has entrapped many an 
architect, the snare of archaeology. Bullant was first 
and last an artist. In all his works it is possible to trace 
an original idea, a serious attempt to realize some great 
architectural conception. He was not exempt from the 
prevailing weakness for the details of antiquity, but 
whereas to other men detail was everything, Bullant's 
imagination moved in larger spaces. He was learning 
the lesson of architecture as the art of great forms and 
rhythmical proportion. Moreover, he was true to the 
finest instinct of French genius, the severe restraint 
which had been the glory of French art in the thirteenth 
century, and which later on will dignify and ennoble 
the art of men such as Franois Mansart and the 
younger Gabriel. He realized that in architecture 
some touch of greatness, an aim at heroic scale, the 
juLGyeOw n of Greek tragedy, is an essential element. 
It must rise above the multiplicity of details, to unity 
of effect and a noble simplicity of statement. Just as 
Goujon raised French sculpture to a plane that it had 
not occupied since the great day of medieval art, so 


Bullant, his friend and fellow-worker, was feeling his 
way to a conception of architecture as an austere art 
with its own technique and its own peculiar methods. 
It is not so much in his actual attainments, as for his 
brave endeavour and his respect for the dignity of his art, 
that Jean Bullant ranks with Goujon as one of the bright 
particular stars of French art in the sixteenth century. 
Few men have done so little for their reputations as 
Pierre Lescot, sieur de Clagny, abb6 of Clermont, 
canon of Notre Dame, the official architect of the 
Louvre, the friend of Ronsard and of most of the 
important people of the Court. He was born in Paris 
about 1510 and came of a legal family of some distinc- 
tion. Ronsard in a wordy panegyric says that Fran9ois I 
loved him more particularly, and that Henri II, a King 
not conspicuous for scholarship, honoured him so much 
that he made him his favourite table companion, in fact, 
that it was a great condescension on the part of a man 
in Lescot's position to have anything to do with archi- 
tecture at all. It appears that he had some knowledge 
of painting, but nothing is known of his training ; there 
is no evidence that he went to Italy, nor did he produce 
any works on architecture such as those written by 
Bullant and de TOnne. 





Lescot first appears on the scene in connection with 
the rood loft of St. Germain TAuxerrois between 1540 
and 1544. In this work Lescot "discovered" Goujon, 
and it will be found that in every work in which Lescot 
was engaged, he associated with himself Jean Goujon. 
The two collaborated in the famous Fontaine des 
Innocents in I55O. 1 In 1547 Lescot was appointed 
architect for the rebuilding of the Louvre, and in 1549 
was instructed to prepare a new design and specifica- 
tion. Though Goujon did not appear on the scene 
officially till 1555, it is probable that he was the "ghost," 
the architect " sous clef," to use Saint-Simon's phrase in 
connection with J. H. Mansart, who was mainly re- 
sponsible for the designs. The architecture is not 
particularly attractive. It is Goujon's sculpture that 
gives its real interest and value to the sixteenth century 
work in the Louvre, the Hall of the Caryatides, the 
admirable treatment of the vault of the staircase, and 
the figures and trophies on the upper storey facing the 
Court. Lescot was in charge up to 1568, but after that 
date there is no mention of him in the Comptes, and 
nothing further is known of his work at the Louvre 
between 1568 and his death ten years later. The last 

1 Taken down in 1785, and rebuilt on an altered plan. 

[ 33 ] c 


payment made to Goujon was made in 1562 ; after that 
he disappears from the accounts and from France ; 
and for long he was supposed to have been killed in the 
massacre of St. Bartholomew, but he was at Bologna in 
1563, and died there before 1568. The year 1562 was 
disastrous for those of the reformed religion. There 
were massacres of Huguenots at Sens and Tours, ten 
years before the Eve of St. Bartholomew. A namesake 
of Jean Goujon was hanged at Troyes in that year. It 
was no longer safe for Protestants in France, and it 
appears that Goujon had to flee for his life and take 
refuge in Italy. Lescot is not credited with any designs 
after Goujon had fled and the inference seems to me 
that Goujon was the designer of the buildings attributed 
to Lescot, and that the latter was the accomplished and 
influential amateur at Court who collected the work, 
saw it through and drew a salary of 1200 livres a year 
for some two-and-twenty years of his life . I take him to 
have occupied a position not unlike that of Sir Reginald 
Bray in England, to whom the design of Henry VIFs 
chapel at Westminster was once assigned without any 
real evidence. 

After the Massacre of St. Bartholomew (1572) nothing 
seemed to prosper in France. In 1588 Guise and his 


brother, the Cardinal, were murdered ; Catherine de 
Medicis died bewildered and uncared for at Blois, and 
in 1589 the last of the Valois was assassinated by 
Jacques Clement. It was the end of a dynasty, not only 
of kings and queens but of artists and scholars. The 
last quarter of the sixteenth century was almost a blank 
in architecture in France. The du Cerceau family, 
Baptiste and Jacques, sons of the famous draughtsman 
Jacques Androuet du Cerceau, carried on as architects. 
Baptiste designed the great house at Charleval in Nor- 
mandy and the Pont Neuf at Paris. His brother 
Jacques and a cousin, a de Brosse, designed Verneuil 
near Senlis, begun in 1570, and now in ruins, and they 
all seem to have been engaged on the Louvre. The last 
twenty years of the sixteenth century were a desolate 
waste, and la Bruyere's criticism of Ronsard that he 
had done more harm than good, because he had severed 
his art from the people, applied also to the French 
architects. The fact was that the architects who had 
superseded the master builders had lost touch with the 
people and gone too far ahead. They had undoubtedly 
improved the planning of buildings, first by the quad- 
rangular court instead of the irregular enclosure and 
more or less haphazard buildings of the medieval 



chateau built for defence, and from this they had 

advanced to the open court, with one side open as at 

Ecouen and the symmetrical facade as at the Chateau 

de Madrid (shown in du Cerceau's engraving). They 

had vastly improved the technique of their art, but they 

were overburdened with their own knowledge and too 

anxious to display their mastery of classical detail as 

then understood. They had not got beyond the stage 

of considering the orders, that is the Doric, Ionic, and 

Corinthian orders of columns, as the last word in 

architecture, and their art was not yet the expression of 

practical purposes in terms that appealed to all. De 

TOrme and his contemporaries had broken up the old 

tradition, but they had not yet built up a new one in its 

place. The next step was to make of Neo-classic a true 

vernacular art, the complete and individual expression 

of the French genius, and this was to be done under 

Henri IV, the best King that ever sat on the throne of 





Ecouen (Seine-et-Oise), 1547. 

St. Germain-en-Laye, 1539-48. 


Meudon (destroyed). 

The Louvre, from 1550. 

Chenonceaux, the gallery, 1556-1576. 

Anet, 1552 and 1577. 

The Tuileries, begun 1564, destroyed 1871. 

Fre-en-Tardenois (Aisne), 1553. 

Chantilly, the CMtelet, 1560. 

Compiegne, the Porte Chapelle. 

Charleval, 1568 

Vemeuil,i 5 75 

Hotel d'Assezat, Toulouse, 1557. 

Hotel Bernuy, Toulouse. 
Hotel du Vieux Raisin, Toulouse. 
La Rochelle, Maison Henri II. 
La Rochelle, Hotel de Ville. 
Nancy, Porte de la Citadelle, 1598. 
La Grosse Horloge, Rouen. 


St. Etienne du Mont, Paris. The Jube. 

St. Michel, Dijon. 

Montargis (Loiret), the choir, 1550. 

St. Maclou, Pontoise. 

The Chapel of the Valois, Paris (destroyed). 

St. Germain TAuxerrois. 




St. Denis, Paris. 

Frangois I. 

Henri II. 

Urn Frangois I. 
Fontaine des Innocents, Paris, 1550 and 1860. 

All dates approximate only. 

Chapter II. Illustrations. 




Chantilly, the CMtelet. 

Rouen, monument to Cardinal Georges d'Amboise. 

do. monument to Louis de Breze. 
Dijon, Eglise St. Michel. 
Toulouse, Hotel d'Assezat. 



Henri IV. Encourages Architecture and the Arts. Town 
Planning Schemes. Paris. The 'Porte et Place de France \ 
De Brosse and the Luxembourg. Lemercier and Richelieu, 
the Town and Chateau. Le Muet and Tanlay. Francois 
Mansart. Balleroy. Blots. Maisons. The Val-de-Grdce. Jesuit 
Architecture. Examples. 

The civil wars had reduced France to a condition 
of complete exhaustion. " France and I," Henri 
IV wrote in 1598, " have need of a breathing space/* 
The kingdom was in debt to the extent of 160 millions 
of francs- It took all the genius and resolution of Henri 
and his minister Sully to restore order and re-estab- 
lish the finances of France on anything like a working 
basis, and they had hardly completed their labours 
when the King was assassinated by Ravaillac. Con- 
sidering the state of the country, what Henri IV actually 
achieved in the last ten years of his life is amazing, and 
there is a marked distinction between Henri IV and his 


predecessors. The Valois kings had built to amuse 
themselves, with complete disregard of the exigencies 
of the State, and their selfishness was incredible. Henri 
IV was first and last a patriotic Frenchman, and he 
pursued a definite policy of encouraging architecture 
and the arts for the good of the State. In the reign of 
Fran9ois I and Henri II a few Italian artists had been 
lodged in the Hotel de Petit Nesle across the river, on 
the site of what is now the Institut de France, but the 
establishment was broken up in 1559. In completing 
the Grand Gallery of the Louvre, the express object of 
Henri IV was to find lodging for artists of all sorts, all 
Frenchmen if possible, and so establish " une pepiniere 
d'ceuvriers," as he called it, a nursery of the arts for the 
service of the State. He sent artists to Rome, and this 
was the germ from which sprang the French Academy 
at Rome, established by Colbert sixty years later. Al- 
most the first work that Henri undertook was a scheme 
to reorganize Paris. He found that city in a condition 
of medieval decrepitude, and in 1600 an ordinance was 
issued for the enlargement, alignment and paving of 
streets, and the prohibition of overhanging storeys. 
In 1608 a far-reaching scheme was begun for the im- 
provement of Paris. The Pont Neuf was completed, 



predecessors. The Valois kings had built to amuse 
themselves, with complete disregard of the exigencies 
of the State, and their selfishness was incredible. Henri 
IV was first and last a patriotic Frenchman, and he 
pursued a definite policy of encouraging architecture 
and the arts for the good of the State, In the reign of 
Fran?ois I and Henri II a few Italian artists had been 
lodged in the Hotel de Petit Nesle across the river, on 
the site of what is now the Institut de France, but the 
establishment was broken up in 1559. In completing 
the Grand Gallery of the Louvre, the express object of 
Henri IV was to find lodging for artists of all sorts, all 
Frenchmen if possible, and so establish " une pepiniere 
d'ceuvriers," as he called it, a nursery of the arts for the 
service of the State. He sent artists to Rome, and this 
was the germ from which sprang the French Academy 
at Rome, established by Colbert sixty years later. Al- 
most the first work that Henri undertook was a scheme 
to reorganize Paris. He found that city in a condition 
of medieval decrepitude, and in 1600 an ordinance was 
issued for the enlargement, alignment and paving of 
streets, and the prohibition of overhanging storeys. 
In 1608 a far-reaching scheme was begun for the im- 
provement of Paris. The Pont Neuf was completed, 




and the Place du Pont Neuf begun ; the Place Royale 
(now the Place des Vosges) was laid out and built, 
followed by the Place Dauphine (1607) and a splendid 
scheme of town-planning was drawn up, known as 
that of the " Porte et Place de France/ 5 This scheme 
provided for an imposing gateway, the Porte de France, 
of brick and stone, on the north side of Paris. The 
traveller passing through this gate found himself in a 
great semicircular space, 480 feet wide at the base, 
round which were to be ranged seven blocks of buildings 
separated by streets to which were given the names of 
the principal provinces of France. At the back of these 
blocks were gardens, and at a distance of 240 feet there 
was to be a concentric road, from which twenty-four 
streets were to radiate right through Paris. One street, 
for example, starting from St. Denis, was to come to the 
Pont Neuf, cross the bridge and so out to the southern 
boundary of the city. The scheme was one of the finest 
and most comprehensive pieces of town-planning ever 
conceived. The work was started in 1609, but after 
the King's murder it was dropped. Richelieu took it 
up again in 1626, but had his hands too full to carry it 
through, and the work was finally abandoned. 

Henri deliberately encouraged building in order to 


give employment and help in settling the country. He 
completed the Grand Gallery connecting the Louvre 
with the Tuileries from the designs either of Louis 
Metezeau or Etienne du Perac, and Jacques Androuet 
du Cerceau, second son of the old engraver. The 
probability is that du Perac designed the earlier part 
next the Louvre, and that the greater part of the Grand 
Gallery, the strange design of a series of coupled 
pilasters with pediments, was the work of du Cerceau. 
The Cour Henri IV, a rather attractive group of build- 
ings, was built at Fontainebleau, a good example of 
that excellent and unpretentious manner of building in 
brick and stone which was introduced in the reign of 
Henri IV, and remained for the next fifty years the 
vernacular style in less ambitious country houses. 
Scarcely less important were the buildings at St. Ger- 
main-en-Laye. Here the buildings left by de TOrme 
were enclosed by a new fagade on the river front, and a 
prodigious series of terraces and stairs was constructed 
leading down to the river some 320 feet below. 

It was also part of Henri's policy to encourage his 
court to build. Sully built himself a house at Rosny. 
Lesdiguieres, one of the ablest of Henri's officers, had a 
great house built for him at Vizille (Isere) 1611-20. 


Montgomery Ducey, a few miles south-east of Avran- 
ches, is an interesting fragment of a house of this period 
begun but not completed ; and now for the first time 
since the fifteenth century the French architects devel- 
oped a vernacular domestic architecture in brick and 
stone, that is, a manner of design which was used by 
everyone as a matter of course and without question. 
The superabundant ornament that had delighted the 
noblemen and the successful tax-gatherers of the reign of 
Francois I was dropped completely. The incessant use 
of the orders with their unnecessary pilasters was 
abandoned, and this was a marked advance on the 
architecture of the sixteenth century, which had been 
largely experimental and exotic. French architecture 
steadily developed along these lines till the middle of 
the seventeenth century. It is regrettable that this 
excellent manner, based on practical purpose and the 
considered use of materials, gradually gave way to the 
more pompous architecture of Italy, but Marie de 
M&Iicis, mother of Louis XIII, was an Italian, and 
after the death of Henri IV, and partly as the result of 
their studies in Italy, by the middle of the seventeenth 
century some of the French architects swung back to 
the Italian motive, and Neo-classic architecture accord- 



ing to the rules of Vignola definitely established itself in 
France, for we have now reached the era of the text- 
book. Serlio, Palladio, Vignola and Scamozzi had 
produced treatises on architecture which found the key 
to the mysteries of architecture in the " orders/' and in 
official architecture the French architects did not dare 
to deviate widely from the rules laid down by these 

Salomon de Brosse began the Luxembourg for 
Marie de Medicis in 1615, a large and rather ponderous 
palace, but he fell out with the Queen over his claims 
for payment and was superseded. He designed three 
other important buildings in Paris : the west front of 
St. Gervais, begun in 1616, a commonplace design ; the 
Protestant temple of Charenton, destroyed after the 
revocation of the Edict of Nantes ; and the hall of the 
Palais de Justice in 1622. He also designed some large 
country houses, Coulommiers-en-Brie, Liencour and 
Monceaux, all of them destroyed, and the same rather 
clumsy technique appears in all of them, to judge the 
designs by the engravings of Marot and Silvestre. The 
best thing that de Brosse did was the Parliament House, 
now Palais de Justice, at Rennes, with its fine hall, 125 
feet by 40 feet wide, covered with a waggon ceiling all 




in wood. De Brosse died in 1626. Technically he was 
quite competent, but he was heavy of hand, and it is no 
use looking to him for the finer qualities of architecture. 
Jean du Cerceau designed the Hotel de Sully, and 
when in 1635 Louis XIII bought the Isle St. Louis, some 
of the best houses in Paris, such as the Hotel de Breton- 
villers, were built here between 1635 ^d 1658. The 
du Cerceau family are a typical example of the French 
custom of father following son in the practice of archi- 
tecture. The dynasty began with the famous engraver 
and survived at least two generations though without 
conspicuous success. Much the ablest architect of the 
first half of the seventeenth century, apart from Fran$ois 
Mansart, was Jacques Lemercier, one of the best archi- 
tects in France in the seventeenth century. Not only 
did he design a magnificent chateau for Cardinal 
Richelieu, now almost entirely destroyed, but he 
designed for him the delighful little town of Richelieu 
to house his suite and attendants, an almost unique 
example of a complete town built right away and at one 
time from the designs of a single architect. He also 
designed the churches of the Oratory and St. Roch in 
Paris, and in 1635 Richelieu laid the first stone of the 
Sorbonne, the most memorable work by Lemercier that 



now remains, and technically the most correct building 
so far erected in France. 

Jacques Lemercier was born at Pontoise in the latter 
part of the sixteenth century and is said to have spent 
a considerable time in Rome between 1607 and 1620, 
when he returned to France. In 1628-9 he was em- 
ployed by Richelieu to design him the Palais Richelieu, 
now the Palais Royal, and carried out important addi- 
tions and modifications in the Louvre for Louis XIII. A 
little later he designed for the Cardinal the vast chateau 
and the little town of Richelieu. He superseded Fran- 
gois Mansart at the Val-de-Grace and in 1653, the 
year before his death, he designed the church of St. 
Roch. He died in Paris in 1654. For the last twenty 
years of his life he had been the leading architect in 
France. He had been Richelieu's right-hand man, and 
the official Court architect, hardly a man of genius, but 
a very skilful architect who thoroughly knew his busi- 
ness and a perfectly honest man. 

His contemporary, Pierre le Muet, designed Chav- 
igny in Touraine and Pointz in Champagne, both of 
which are destroyed, and also the great house of Tanlay 
in Burgundy, surrounded by its broad moat of clear 
running water, one of the most attractive country 



houses in France. He also designed some important 
Hotels in Paris, such as the Hotels Davaux, de Chev- 
reuse, and de PAigle ; but he outlived his generation 
and was passed by the younger men. He died in 1669. 
Without being a first-rate architect, he appears to have 
been a very capable man, but history has treated him 
unkindly and, except for his book on building, he 
would be little more than a name to a few industrious 

The one really great architect of the seventeenth 
century was that strange creature, Fran9ois Mansart. 
He was born at Paris in 1598, the son of a carpenter in 
the royal employment. It is not really known how and 
where he was trained, or whether he ever went to Italy 
at all, but as d'Argenville, his biographer, said, this was 
the less material owing to his rare natural endowments, 
" his exquisite taste, just and solid intelligence, aiming 
always at proportion, and his rich and noble imagina- 
tion." His portrait, engraved by Edelinck, shows a 
refined, thoughtful, rather ascetic face, with a-very long 
nose, a totally different type of face from the full 
arrogant countenance of his reputed great-nephew, 
Jules Hardouin Mansart, the celebrated architect of 
Louis XIV. 


Fran9ois Mansart's earliest works were, it seems, 
carried out in Normandy, such as the fine house of 
Balleroy (1626), near Bayeux, with its steep roofs and 
its two pavilions set in advance of the main body, a 
characteristic motive of Mansart 's design. Tilloloy 
(Somme), once an important house, has been attributed, 
I think wrongly, to Mansart. It was built in 1645 on 
the site of a castle destroyed by Richelieu in pursuance 
of his policy of breaking the feudal aristocracy. Tilloloy 
is said to have been built by a master mason, Blaise 
Carbon. Unfortunately it was destroyed by the Ger- 
mans in 1916, and it is now impossible to discover who 
designed it ; and this was also the fate of Berni, a fine 
great house which anticipated in its main lines the 
famous house of Maisons Laffitte. Not far from 
Balleroy are the remains of a house at Brecy which was 
never completed, but there remains an elaborate en- 
trance to what was apparently intended to be the fore- 
court of a magnificent building. Mansart was wholly 
indifferent to cost. The essential thing to him was to 
get his ideas realized. On one occasion at Maisons he 
actually pulled down the wing of a house built from his 
designs, because he disliked the look of it, and he 
appears to have been rather intransigent, and much too 




independent for Colbert to trust him with the comple- 
tion of the Louvre. But earlier in his career he seems 
to have done pretty well what he liked. 

In 1635 Gaston, due d'Orleans instructed him to 
prepare plans for the complete rebuilding of Blois. The 
whole of the north-west side was pulled down, and here 
Mansart designed the stately block of buildings that 
occupies the whole side of the chateau opposite the 
main entrance, with its noble stone staircase, an early 
example of those amazing staircases hanging in the air 
as it almost seems, which came into use in the seven- 
teenth century, masterpieces of masonry dependent for 
their stability on ingenious combinations of straight 
and curved arches and their resultant forces. 

Blois was followed by Maisons on the banks of the 
Seine, begun for Rene de Longueil, an unscrupulous 
person, who is said to have spent 12,000,000 livres on 
Maisons, and who agreed to a condition insisted on by 
Mansart, that the architect should be free to alter his 
work as and when he liked. As left by Mansart with its 
forecourt and its gardens, Maisons must have been the 
most perfect example of domestic architecture in 
France ; but after belonging to Lannes, who was killed 
at Essling, Maisons was sold in 1818 to Laffitte, a finan- 

B.F.A. [ Ag J D 


cier and a man of no taste, who broke up the park into 
building plots, and a M. Thomas, who succeeded him 
completed the destruction of the grounds with the help 
of an " architecte paysagiste," skilled in designing 
what the French choose to call the " jardin anglais," 
who put the final touch to the barbarities of Laffitte. 
Indeed, the great houses of France have suffered most 
lamentably from the bad taste of the nineteenth century. 
Still the house remains and I regard this and Mansart's 
building at Blois as the finest examples of domestic 
Neo-classic architecture in France. Mansart built at 
least ten great houses in Paris, such, for example, as the 
Hotel d'Argouge, or Carnavalet. In the entrance front 
of this house he had to embody the two lion panels by 
Goujon and two figures. Mansart managed this with 
admirable address, and this is a good example of his 
tact, and of the fastidious refinement of his design. 

The originality of Mansart's genius is shown in his 
church work even more than in his houses. Where 
Lemercier's design, for example, was able but timid, 
Mansart comes in as a master, the man who completely 
realized his idea with no suggestion of failure and with 
no apparent effort. His work has the inevitable unity 
which is reserved for the creation of genius. In 1632 he 


designed the church of the Visitation of Ste. Marie in 
the rue St. Antoine (now a Protestant church), a beau- 
tiful interior on a circular plan, one of the most original 
ventures in post- Gothic church architecture ever made 
in France. He designed the front of the great church 
of the Minimes near the Place Royale, now destroyed, 
and his last and greatest work was the design for the 
church of the Val-de-Grace, begun for Anne of Austria 
in 1645, to f orm tk e central feature of a vast monastery 
which was to be rebuilt to his designs, but the result 
was a tragedy. Mansart was recklessly extravagant, the 
Queen Mother, Anne of Austria, was timid and parsi- 
monious, and within a year of the laying of the founda- 
tion stone Mansart was superseded by Lemercier. He 
had fallen out of favour. Lemercier himself was a loyal 
and honest man, but Mansart, refined and sensitive, an 
artist to his finger tips, was nowhere with the adventurers 
who crowded the French court after the middle of the 
seventeenth century. He was given one more chance 
by Colbert, when plans were being considered for the 
completion of the Louvre. Mansart submitted several, 
and when Colbert told him that he must definitely fix 
on one for submission to the King, Mansart withdrew 
his designs. He died four years later, in 1666. Un- 

scrupulous rivals had embittered his latter days, but 
he was the greatest French architect in the seventeenth 
century and stands apart from others in the complete 
accomplishment of his art, his sense of scale, his feeling 
for proportion, and his splendid simplicity of statement. 

The death of Fran9ois Mansart marks the close of a 
very interesting and attractive period of French archi- 
tecture. In the sixty odd years from the time of Henri 
IV to the beginning of the personal rule of Louis XIV 
French architecture had followed its own development, 
unimpeded by state control, unspoilt by the fashion of 
the day. The public-spirited lead given by Henri IV 
in town-planning was not followed up, because for the 
next fifty years important people in French society were 
too much occupied with political intrigues to pay much 
attention to the arts. The result was that the arts went 
their own way, and one finds in that period greater 
originality and independence than was possible in the 
severely disciplined art of the reign of Louis XIV. 
Nicholas Poussin was a better artist than le Brun, 
Fran9ois Mansart than Jules Hardouin, his nephew. 
Moreover the architects had steadily advanced in 
technique since the days of the Triad ; and it is this 
combination of greater freedom with greater technical 




ability that gives a peculiar fascination to the art of the 
first half of the seventeenth century in France* 

There is one development in French architecture of 
the seventeenth century which should be noted, though 
it is of historical rather than architectural importance, 
and that is the renewed activity in the building of 
churches, chapels and large educational establishments 
which followed the recall of the Jesuits in 1604. The 
development of church architecture is one of the most 
remarkable features of French architecture in the 
middle part of the seventeenth century. The medieval 
tradition had held on in churches after it had failed 
elsewhere. The choir of St. Remi, Dieppe, is a cur- 
ious example with its sturdy cylindrical columns, 
Renaissance capitals and Gothic vaulting. St. Eustache 
in Paris, begun in 1552 and finished a hundred years 
later, has flying buttresses and tracery in the windows. 
The architecture of the cathedral of Blois, begun in 
1678, is a flamboyant Gothic ; and the cathedral of 
Orleans, of which Henri IV laid the first stone in 1601, 
followed a bastard Gothic design from that date till its 
completion under Gabriel in the reign of Louis XV. 
There was a strong religious revival in the middle of 
the seventeenth century. The Queen Mother began the 


great church and establishment of the Val-de-Grace. 
The Jesuits were very active and there was a strong 
swing-back to Rome. No trained French architect 
could get St. Peter's and the Church of the Jesu out of 
his head, and so there came the types of church of the 
Val-de-Grace on the one hand, and the Jesuit church 
on the other. On their recall in 1604 the Jesuits at once 
started their resolute propaganda both in doctrine and 
in building, and much as one may dislike their methods, 
they undoubtedly did a very remarkable work in educa- 
tion. Their best known architect was Etienne Martel- 
lange (1569-1641), who was responsible for part, at any 
rate, of the designs for the colleges of Le Puy, Moulins, 
Vienne, Carpentras, Vesoul, Dijon, La Fleche, Roanne, 
Orleans and Lyons. Though not by him, there are still 
fine examples of these great establishments, the Lyce 
Malherbe at Caen, the Lycee Henri IV at Poitiers, and 
the Lyc^e Corneille at Rouen, all simple workmanlike 
buildings, notable chiefly for their dining halls, with 
their half-elliptical vaults. The type of the Jesuit 
church is familiar, the nave with shallow recesses 
between the abutments of the transverse arches with 
galleries above ; and on the outside, as a French writer 
has described it, " columns in the ground storey between 


the three doors, entablature and cornice, columns in the 
upper storey on either side of the central ceil-de-boeuf , 
triangular pediment at the top, the implacable fafade 
rises identical in every sky/* There is an example at 
Nevers, St. Pierre, and the best examples are the church 
of Notre Dame de la Gloriette at Caen and the Mont- 
morency chapel at Moulins, with Regnauldin's stately 
monument in memory of that hapless young nobleman 
the due de Montmorency who was executed by Riche- 
lieu in 1632. 

It has been a fashion to sneer at Jesuit architecture, 
but in its early days and before the Jesuits had lost 
themselves in intrigues and worldly ambition, they had 
evolved a style which was the genuine expression of a 
far-reaching educational ideal. Theirs was the last 
serious and sustained effort in France in building 
churches and colleges. 


Place des Vosges, Paris, 1604. 

Place Dauphine, Paris, 1607. 

Gallery of the Louvre and Pavilion de Flore. 

Fontainebleau (Cour Henri IV, Chapel). 



St. Germain-en-Laye. 

The Luxembourg, 1615-27. 

Vizille (Isere), 1612-20. 

Montgomery Ducey (Manche). 

Palais de Justice, Rennes, 1624-54. 

Palais Royal, Paris, begun 1629-34. 

Richelieu (Indre-et-Loire). The church and town. 

Blois, Aile de Gaston d'Orleans, 1635. 

Tanlay (Yonne), 1642-47. 

Maisons (Seine-et-Oise), 1642. 

Balleroy (Calvados). 

Bre9y (Calvados). 

Hotel Carnavalet, Paris, 1550 and 1660. 

The Palais Royal, Paris, 1629-34. 

Cheverney (Loir-et-Cher), 1634. 

Miromesnil (Seine Inferieure), about 1650. 

Thugny (Ardennes). 

Beaumesnil (Eure), 1633-44. 

Chambray (Eure). 

Champ de Bataille (Eure). 

H6tel de ViUe, Troyes, 1625. 

Pont Neuf, Toulouse. 

Rennes, Palais de Justice, 1618-54. 

The Lycee, Eu (Seine Inferieure). 

Lycee Corneille, Rouen. 

Lyc6e Henri IV, Poitiers. 

Eu, le CMteau. 

Lycee Malherbe, Caen. 

Auray, Eglise St. Gildas, 1636. 





St. Omer, the Jesuit College (now PHopital Militaire). 

Cany Barville (Seine Inferieure), 1640-46. 

Daubeuf (Seine Inferieure), 1629. 

Vaux le Vicomte (Seine-et-Marne), 1653-59* 

Bevilliers Breteuil (Seine-et-Oise). 

Rosny (Seine-et-Oise). 

Suzanne (Somme). 

Tilloloy (Somme), 1645. 

Hotel de Vogiie, Dijon, 1614. 

EvSche, Lisieux. 

Courances (Seine-et-Oise). 

Vannes, H6tel de Limur. 


St. Omer, Chapel of Lycee, 1615-29. 

The Sorbonne, 1635. 

Eglise de la Visitation de Ste. Marie, Paris, 1632. 

Val-de- Grace, Paris, 1645. 

Nevers, St. Pierre. 

Moulins, the Montmorency Chapel. 

St. Roch, 1653. 

St. Paul, St. Louis, 1627-41. 

Notre Dame des Ardilliers, Saumur, 1534-1654. 

St. Gervais, Paris, 1616. 

Orleans, the Cathedral, 1601-1790. 

All dates approximate only. 


Chapter III. Illustrations- 

Place des Vosges. 

Llsieux, TEveche. 


Blois, north, wing. 


Val-de~Grace, interior, 

Poitiers, Lycee Henri IV. 

Caen, Notre Dame de la Gloriette. 

Paris > JMiis^e Carnavalet. 

Vaux-le-Vicomte (tHe gardens). 



Colbert 9 s reorganization of the Arts. Le Vau and the transition. 
ColUge des Quatre Nations. Vaux-le- Vicamte. The completion 
of the Louvre. Bernini. Claude Perrault. Franpois Blondel. 
The ' Architectes du Roi. 9 Bruand. Bullet. Andrt le Ndtre. 

The third lap in French Neo-classic architecture 
closes with the death of Fran9ois Mansart, and 
we now enter on the prodigious building enterprise of 
Louis XIV. In the first fifty years of the sixteenth cen- 
tury the master-builders and the Italians were fighting 
for mastery, and, in the last fifty, the master-builders 
had to make way for the architects who regularized and, 
to some extent, standardized the results of the Italian 
incursions into France. The period from the beginning 
of the seventeenth century down to the death of 
Mazarin in 1661 saw the full and mature realization of 
French Neo-classic architecture. It was not a period 
of great building activity. The encouragement of 
architecture begun by Henri IV ended with his death* 



Louis XIII was rather lethargic, Richelieu's policy was 
to pull down a turbulent aristocracy, rather than do 
anything to increase its powers, and Mazarin was so 
much occupied with preserving his own position 
amidst incessant intrigues of the Court, that he paid 
little attention to architecture, and concentrated his 
efforts on amassing a vast fortune and a magnificent 
collection of works of art. Meanwhile however archi- 
tects had been left free to pursue the development of 
their art in their own way, and when Mazarin died the 
technique of French architecture was assured, and 
everything was ready for the great outburst of building 
for Louis XIV in the thirty years from 1661 to 1690. 
The death of Mazarin marks the end of a long and varied 
chapter in the history of French architecture, and the 
rise of a new era which differed materially in its methods 
of organization from that which preceded it. 

Mazarin had been content to leave things alone. He 
interfered as little as possible with the officers of the 
State, including the architects on the royal staff. 
Francois Mansart, le Muet and Lemercier enjoyed 
much greater liberty of action than Colbert allowed to 
their successors. Under the official machinery estab- 
lished by Colbert, architects, painters and sculptors 




had to do what they were told by the King and his 
resolute and relentless minister. The King was vain, 
arbitrary, despotic, and fond of being flattered, with the 
result that intrigue was rampant at his Court, and how- 
ever able an architect might be, he was not likely to go 
very far unless he could secure the favour of the King's 
minister, or that of one of the royal mistresses. The 
result was the rather dreary monotony of official archi- 
tecture. Saint-Simon gives a saying of the time : 
" Henri IV avec son peuple sur le Pont Neuf . Louis 
XIII avec les gens de qualit< a la Place Royale, et 
Louis XIV avec les maltotiers x dans la Place des 

When Mazarin died Louis XIV was twenty-two. He 
was determined to have his own way and govern himself, 
but he was fortunate in having in Colbert a first-rate 
minister, who kept him out of mischief with consider- 
able success, largely by diverting his energies into pro- 
fuse and very costly building. There is no doubt that 
Louis XIV, like Fran9ois I, loved building and prided 
himself on his taste and the accuracy of his eye, but till 
Colbert took it in hand the condition of the admini- 
strative machinery in France seems to have been chaotic. 

1 Tax-gatherers. 



In 1653 Fouquet had been appointed " Surintendant 
des Finances/ * and his business was not only to receive 
money but also to raise it. " II lui (le Roy) pretait 
comme particulier, et se remboursait comme surinten- 

Fouquet was an attractive person, but evidently un- 
scrupulous in his methods, and hopelessly extravagant. 
He is said to have spent 18 million livres on the house 
and grounds of Vaux-le-Vicomte. It is difficult to fix 
the value of the livre in the seventeenth century. In 
1666 le Brun received an annual salary of 8800 francs, 
and Bernini 6000 for himself and 1200 for his son, and 
the salaries of the Architectes du Roi in 1673 varied 
from 200 to 1200 francs a year. Reckoning the livre at 
five francs to the pound the cost of Vaux-le-Vicomte 
would have been between three and four millions 
sterling. To show his loyalty, Fouquet gave the famous 
fetes at Vaux-le-Vicomte in honour of the King, but it 
was the end of his career. Colbert was determined to 
destroy him. Fouquet was arrested, and only escaped 
death through the strenuous exertions of his friends. 
Colbert made himself Surintendant des Batiments in 
1664, combining more or less the functions of a First 
Lord of the Treasury, a Minister of Fine Arts and 



a First Commissioner of Works. He proceeded to 
organize a large staff, composed of the leading architects 
of Paris at the time. Colbert styled himself " Surin- 
tendant et Ordonnateur General des Batiments, jardins, 
tapisseries, et manufactures de France/' at a salary first 
of 15,000 livres a year ; rising under the skilful manipu- 
lation of Jules Hardouin Mansart, twenty years later, 
to 60,886 francs. Under the Surintendant were the 
various " officiers des Batiments," (i) three Intendants, 
at salaries of 6000 francs a year, (2) three Controleurs 
at 4500 francs a year (Andre le Notre was a con- 
troleur for the last thirty-two years of his life), (3) three 
Tresoriers at 2800 francs a year. One of Colbert's 
instructions begins, " II faut travailler incessament," 
and under that iron man his subordinates must have 
had a difficult time. Below these permanent officials 
came the architects, paid " pour servir generalement 
dans toutes les maisons royales," and at the head of the 
list came Louis le Vau, " premier architecte de Sa 
Majeste," at an annual salary of 6000 francs. These 
appointments were eagerly soiight for, and could be 
obtained by purchase or inheritance. They were more 
or less confined to certain families, their friends and 
connections, and in spite of Colbert's watchful eye they 

afforded plenty of opportunities for jobbery. What the 
elder Gabriel designed, his brother and his uncle con- 
tracted for, and some other relation checked the 
accounts, and the dangerous system of measure and 
value in use in the sixteenth century seems to have 
continued under Colbert. Within this ring fence of 
monopoly, and with direct interference by the Surinten- 
dant, there was little room for adventure. Fran?ois 
Mansart was the last representative of that old school, 
free and unfettered, in which men designed according 
to their own ideas of what was right and not to an iron 
standard of design. After 1664 no French architect 
would have dared to treat a royal commission with the 
casual independence of Francois Mansart when called 
in at the Louvre. 

From this date forward, French architecture becomes 
official, to a large extent standardized. The Academy 
laid down rules for the right use of the orders and other 
details of architecture. The happy freedom of Fon- 
tainebleau, the resolute individualism of the manner of 
Henri IV, the high ideals of such men as Fran9ois 
Mansart, were now to be things of the past. Versailles 
was the standard, and Jules Hardouin Mansart and 
le Brun the protagonists of " le bon goust," and we 



*' >f ::.. ... r -.;:;; - 

I J ,.^l^to'!lr.^LJi iiiirrn 

'%. ? ffliJB| RJJ*JLJl~- ; ilp!*- 




must look for a period of consummate accomplishment, 
rarely relieved by flashes of genius. 

Scarcely less important than his reorganization of the 
royal staff was Colbert's establishment of the Academy 
of Architecture. An Academy of Painting and Sculp- 
ture had been founded in 1648, in order to break the 
monopoly of the guilds of painters and sculptors. 
Meanwhile, there was no academy of architecture. In 
1663 Colbert had established an advisory committee to 
help him with the Louvre, and in 1664 the first steps 
were taken to establish an academy in Rome, for 
students in painting and sculpture, under Poussin. 
The advisory committee was promoted to the status of 
a " Conseil des Batiments," but this also proved un- 
satisfactory, and in 1671 Colbert established an Aca- 
demy of Architecture, to advise him about the royal 
buildings, to instruct students and to lay down rules 
for the practice of architecture. The elder Blondel 
was its first professor, and there can be no doubt that, 
in its earlier days, this academy did some very useful 
work, in providing for the training of students, settling 
technical questions and clarifying the practice of archi- 
tecture. It gradually established that tradition of 
thorough training, and sound and scientific building, 



which was to be the special distinction of French archi- 
tecture for the next two centuries. Its educational work 
in connexion with the famous French Academy in 
Rome was of the highest importance, and it had little 
difficulty in establishing a severe and uniform gym- 
nastic, because for a hundred years from the date of its 
foundation there was no serious difference of opinion 
as to standards and first principles, and as to what is 
and is not beautiful. It was inevitable that French 
architecture should become almost entirely academic, 
in the sense that it had to conform to some definite 
type. On the other hand, the refinements of the art, 
proportion, fastidious selection, and skilful planning, 
were thoroughly mastered. French architecture in the 
eighteenth century, down to the Revolution, may have 
been monotonous, but technically it was perhaps the 
most accomplished that had appeared in Europe since 
the days of Greece. 

The career of Louis le Vau marks the transition from 
the age of Mazarin to the age of Colbert. Le Vau was 
born in 1612 and became one of the leading architects 
in France in the middle of the seventeenth century. 
About 1656 he rebuilt the south front of the Louvre, 
and the east front, now concealed behind Perrault's 



facade, and in 1664 completed and spoilt the Tuileries. 
He designed the College des Quatre Nations (now the 
Institut de France) shortly before the death of Mazarin, 
on the whole a fine design considering the difficulties 
of the site on the south bank of the river, but le Vau's 
best work was done in the country at Rincy and Turny, 
two fine great houses, both destroyed, and more 
particularly at Vaux-le-Vicomte, designed in 1653 for 
Fouquet, the Surintendant des Finances, with its magni- 
ficent gardens by le Notre. Vaux-le-Vicomte is still 
one of the most splendid houses in France. Unlike 
Maisons, its beautiful setting has been preserved un- 
altered, and house and grounds give a better idea of 
a great country-house of the time of Louis XIV than 
any other in France. In 1661 le Vau was called in to add 
to the old hunting lodge which Louis XIII had built 
at Versailles, He added two wings, but the work was 
stopped in 1664. Le Vau was very unlucky. Nothing 
more was done at Versailles till some fifteen years later 
when Mansart swept away all that le Vau had done, 
and in the same year (1664) le Vau was superseded at 
the Louvre and passed by younger men, for he belonged 
to the old regime, to the generation that went out with 
Mazarin, and though very successful in his day and a 


fine architect he had never Been quite on the level of 
Lemercier or Francois Mansart. Le Vau died in 1671. 
D'Orbay, his son-in-law, was associated with le Vau in 
his later works, but was not a considerable architect. 
He was an original member of the Academy of Archi- 
tecture established by Colbert in 1671, and gave a 
design for the Porte du Peyrou at Montpellier, carried 
out by Daviler in 1685* He died in 1697 long passed 
over and forgotten. 

I mentioned before that Colbert in his efforts to keep 
the King out of mischief, diverted his energies to magni- 
ficent building, and began with the completion of the 
Louvre, at that time in an unfinished and unsatisfactory 
condition, and it is a remarkable thing that this, the 
first important architectural undertaking of the new 
regime, was entrusted not to a professional architect but 
to a brilliant amateur who had been trained as a doctor* 
Colbert was very anxious to keep the young King in 
Paris, and in order to do so, wrote to the King that the 
time had come " s'appliquer tout de bon a achever le 
Louvre." Le Vau had been at work at the Louvre 
since 1656. Colbert now had a model made of his 
design, and asked the architects of Paris for their 
opinions on its merits. The architects, instead of stand- 


ing by their colleague, condemned his design, and pro- 
duced various designs of their own- Meanwhile, 
Charles Perrault, Colbert's secretary, produced an 
anonymous design, made by his brother Claude, and 
this design was sent to Rome to obtain the opinion of 
famous Italian architects, Carlo Fontana, Pietro Berret- 
tini, Bernini and others. The Italian architects fol- 
lowed the example of the French, disparaged the design 
and produced various designs of their own " tous fort 
bizarres " ; but Bernini had the greatest reputation of 
any architect in the world of his time, and his friends 
impressed on Colbert that there was only one man living 
capable of the work, and that was Bernini. Accordingly 
Bernini was invited to come to Paris by a personal letter 
from the King himself, and his journey was in the nature 
of a royal progress. Bernini produced a prodigious 
design which involved the destruction of the greater 
part of the existing Louvre, and though it had fine 
points, it was, in fact, impracticable, but so great was 
Bernini's reputation that his design was accepted, and 
the first stone actually laid in October 1665, six months 
after his arrival in Paris. 

Meanwhile, the indefatigable Charles Perrault called 
Colbert's attention to the numerous faults of Bernini's 



designs. Indeed on one occasion Bernini caught Per- 
rault spying on his designs, called him a dirty dog, and 
told him he was not fit to black his boots, and that for 
twopence-halfpenny he would smash the King's bust 
and return to Italy. Bernini returned to Italy thor- 
oughly disgusted with France. The fact was that the 
whole thing was a farce. Colbert probably, and his 
secretary certainly, never meant to have any but a 
French architect employed, and Charles Perrault had 
succeeded in manoeuvring his brother Claude into the 
commission for the completion of the Louvre, and 
Claude produced one of the most remarkable architec- 
tural designs of the seventeenth century. Few buildings 
have made a greater sensation or aroused more lively 
controversy than the peristyle of the Louvre, the fa9ade 
on the east side. The elder Blondel, a rather disagree- 
able old pedant, condemned Perrault's design with its 
double columns as having no precedent in antiquity. 
Hermogenes, he said, might do what he liked with 
coupled columns or anything else, but Perrault was not 
a Hermogenes. Blondel might well have criticized 
Perrault's design for its complete disregard of the 
existing building and of what poor le Vau had done 
only a few years before, but Perrault would probably 



Lave quoted Bernini's design as a precedent, for the 
Italian had proposed to pull down the whole building. 
The younger Blondel, a much better judge, lecturing 
fifty years later, pronounced Perrault's design to be 
" non seulement le triomphe de Parchitecture et de 
sculpture, mais encore le chef d'ceuvre de Tart, pour la 
hardiesse de la construction. Tout y est noble et 
imposant." He ranked it with the Porte St. Denis, 
Maisons and the Val-de-Grace as one of the three or 
four masterpieces of French architecture, but Perrault 's 
colleagues were jealous, the King lost interest in the 
Louvre, and the work gradually flickered out. The 
east and part of the sides only of this great design 
were completed. Perrault fell out of favour and died in 
1688 of blood poisoning caught in dissecting a camel. 
Perrault was a man of brilliant ability, in some ways not 
unlike Christopher Wren in his combination of scientific 
knowledge with unusual power of invention and a very 
original turn of mind. Partly owing to the fact that he 
began as an amateur with most inadequate technical 
training, Wren did not take up architecture where Inigo 
Jones had left it in the reign of Charles I. So Per- 
rault on his part made no attempt to follow in the track 
of Francois Mansart and Lemercier, but went off on a 



line of his own, for the peristyle of the Louvre is not quite 
like any other French work of the seventeenth century. 
Francois Blondel, Perrault's rival, was almost ex- 
actly his contemporary, and like Perrault is not known 
to have received any specific training in architecture, 
but for three years he was travelling tutor to the son of 
a secretary of State, and studied the architecture of the 
various countries which he visited. He was employed 
for a time by the State as inspector of harbours and 
certain engineering works, and he seems to have been a 
good constructor, for the bridge at Saintes, built from his 
design in 1665, lasted till 1845, when it was taken down ; 
whereas J. H. Mansart's bridge at Moulins stood up for 
just five years. Blondel was also a most industrious and 
conscientious pedant. Like Claude Perrault, he was 
52 years of age when he made his first essay in original 
architecture, but unlike Perrault he was hidebound by 
what he believed to be antiquity. He could not escape 
it when he designed the Porte St. Denis, and it coloured 
the whole of his teaching of architecture at the Aca- 
demy, and his famous " Cours d'Architecture ". What 
Blondel prided himself on most of all was his composi- 
tion of sonorous Latin inscriptions. He was in no sense 
a great architect, nor was he an attractive writer. He 



endeavoured to establish a rigid and absolute philo- 
sophy of art, with fixed laws of architecture, almost as 
part of Colbert's State machinery, but his aesthetic was 
fantastic and his logic ridiculous. He was untouched 
by the literary quality and large tolerance which dis- 
tinguished the writings of both the Perraults. 

In his reorganization of the State machinery Colbert 
had established a staff of architects who were in the 
King's pay, and were entitled to call themselves 
" Architectes du Roi ". Among them were many able 
architects who are now almost forgotten, owing to the 
astonishing success of Jules Hardouin Mansart, who 
succeeded in monopolising all the important work that 
was done in France before the end of the prosperous 
days of Louis XIV. Charles Errard, Bruand, Pierre 
Mignard, Anthoine Lepautre, Cottart, Richer, Robelin, 
Gobert, Gittard and le Due were all architects employed 
on one or other of the important buildings erected in or 
near Paris in the earlier part of the reign. Liberal Bruand 
designed the vast hospital of La Salpetriere, and in 
1675 he was entrusted with the design of the Hotel de 
Mars or des Invalides, that splendid hospital which 
Louis XIV had built for disabled soldiers, " les 
estropi^z et caducs ". He was undoubtedly an excel- 


lent architect, but, like many others of his colleagues, 
he was elbowed out by Jules Hardouin Mansart, and 
when he died in 1697 was in serious financial difficulties. 
Pierre Bullet, who designed the Porte St. Martin, was 
more fortunate. He continued in active practice almost 
up to the date of his death in 1716, and the younger 
Blondel, who knew his work, regarded him as a master 
in his art. These architect members of the French 
Academy of Architecture undoubtedly knew their busi- 
ness and had to at their own risk, for there was Colbert 
waiting grimly in the background, and colleagues anx- 
iously looking out for any blunders that might lead to 
their supersession. But their position was, to a certain 
extent, safeguarded by the Academy which tended to be- 
come more and more a family affair. The families of J . H . 
Mansart, Bullet, Bruand, D 'Orbay , Gobert, de Cotte and 
PAssurance are examples of two generations, and Mollet 
and Gabriel of three generations of architect members of 
the Academy of Architecture. Nearly all these " Archi- 
tectes du Roi " were distinguished men in their time, but 
with two exceptions we do not find any outstanding figure 
among them. The two exceptions were men who for 
good and bad dominated the architecture of the age of 
Louis XIV, Andre le Notre and Jules Hardouin Mansart. 


Chap. IV. Illustrations. 

The Louvre (east front). 
The Institut de France. 
Les (general view). 
Vaux-le-Vicomte (the chateau). 



AndrtleNdtre. TheTuileries. Versailles. Chantilly. Jules 
Hardouin Mansart. The King's extravagance. Versailles. 
Maintenon. Marly. The Church of the Dome. Mansart's 
amazing sttccess. 

Two men stand out among the multitude of artists 
in the reign of Louis XIV, Andre le N6tre, the 
designer of grounds and gardens, and Jules Hardouin 
Mansart, the architect of Versailles. Le N6tre was 
born in 1613, the son of Jean le Notre, the official 
gardener of the Tuileries. He learnt something about 
drawing in the studio of Simon Vouet, principal painter 
to Louis XIII with lodging in the Louvre and a large 
salary. Most of the artists who became famous in the 
earlier years of the reign of Louis XIV passed through 
Vouet's studio, and here le Notre met le Brun, le 
Sueur, Mignard and others, and began his career as an 
artist and designer. The point is important, because it 
means that le N6tre had training and knowledge before 





he settled down to the design of grounds and gardens, 
unlike our landscape gardeners and municipal engineers, 
who assume that they can do these things by the light 
of nature without any training in design, and even rely 
on the saying of Lancelot Browne, the famous, or 
infamous, hero of the " jardin anglais " in the eighteenth 
century, that " knowledge hampers originality." 

In 1637 Jean le Notre resigned his post of gardener 
to the Tuileries in favour of his son Andre. This was 
confirmed by a royal brevet, and for the next fifty-five 
years of his life Andr6 was paid an annual salary of 
1200 francs a year with a lodging in the Tuileries " pour 
travailler aux desseins des parterres et jardins de S JVI." 
Charles Mollet, another well-known garden man em- 
ployed on the royal designs, received only 500 francs. 
The salary which appears in the accounts year after year 
till le Notre resigned it in favour of his nephew soon 
became a retaining fee, for in addition to this le Notre 
received an annual salary of 3000 francs as " Controleur 
Gnral Ancien des Bastiments de S.M.," a post to 
which he was appointed in 1670-71. In addition to 
this he received payment for individual work, such as 
1500 francs for his care of an " espalier de jasmins 
d'Espagne " in 1672, and that year he was being paid an 


annual salary of 8000 francs for the care of the gardens 
and grounds of the Tuileries. One way and another 
the " officers serving the King," as they were called, 
managed to pick up very comfortable incomes. 

Le Notre 's work at the Tuileries is specified in detail 
in the accounts of Louis XIV. His duties were to 
" clear, beat and rake " the grand terrace in front of the 
palace and various paths and alleys, to clip and keep 
in order eight squares " de parterre en broderie " and 
various beds and borders, to furnish them with flowers 
in their proper seasons at his own cost, to maintain a 
flower garden filled with flowers " particularly during 
the winter," with all necessary heating and mould, and 
to keep the " espalier de jasmins d'Espagne " in good 
order. Generally, he was in charge of all the royal 
gardens, providing designs, arranging for their execu- 
tion and seeing that they were duly carried out. 

In addition to this work, le Notre was in constant 
employment at most of the great houses in the neigh- 
bourhood of Paris. In the years 1656-61 he laid out the 
grounds of Vaux-le-Vicomte, a characteristic example of 
his manner still much as he left it. Near the house after 
a low terrace he kept the ground low with " parterres 
de broderie " on either side of the great central walk 



leading down to the " canal " running right and left, 
3000 feet long and 120 feet wide. Beyond this the 
ground rises and here le Notre designed some prodi- 
gious works : an immense grotto with seven great 
arched recesses ; on either side broad ramps ascended 
to a plateau on which were to be found elaborate 
cascades, everything on a scale which must have opened 
the eyes of the King and Colbert to the extent to which 
Fouquet had dipped into the moneys of the State, In 
the beautiful view of the grotto of Vaux by Perelle the 
design is expressly attributed to Sr. le Notre, and this 
shows that le Notre was in fact an accomplished archi- 
tect, with an extraordinary sense of the possibilities of 
the sites with which he dealt, an artist on an entirely 
different footing from that of the modern landscape 
gardener. In a treatise published in Paris in 1709, 
La theorie et pratique du jardinage, the anonymous 
author says of gardener designers, " These men conceit 
that because they can prune a fruit tree and make a 
kitchen bed, they are perfectly skilled too in what 
relates to pleasure gardens." This book by the way, 
a translation of which by James of Greenwich, the 
architect, appeared in 1712, was a famous book in its 
time. It is the only complete account of garden design 



as practised by le Notre and his contemporaries, a 
manner of which the best examples in England are 
Hampton Court and Wrest. 

His design showed a frank disregard of the ways of 
nature left to its own devices, and the claims for a 
deification of nature, advanced with such unction by 
the landscape gardeners of the latter part of the eigh- 
teenth century and since, would have had no meaning 
for le Notre and his contemporaries. 

His work at Versailles is well known. It is laid out 
on exact geometrical lines, elaborate parterres in front 
of the palace, divided into rectangular compartments, 
a broad central walk leading down to the Bassin 
d'Apollon and beyond to the great Canal, and from 
the Bassin d'Apollon straight avenues laid out as a 
patte-d'oie (goose-foot) lead outwards through bosquets 
of tall trees to the outer boundaries of the grounds. 
Fountains, figures, groups of figures, flights of stairs, 
and all sorts of admirably executed details are found 
everywhere. The gardens took twenty years to com- 
plete and the expense was enormous, for the site was 
a bad one. In one year, 1680, the cost of earthwork 
alone was 931,5066:. QS. yd., and added to this was 
the disastrous failure of the aqueduct of Maintenon and 



the never-ending noise and expense of the machine of 
Marly, built to throw up water from the Seine into the 

The Grand Conde had retired to Chantilly in partial 
disgrace, and here he amused himself with laying out 
an immense garden begun in 1663 from the design of 
le Notre. All that is now left of it is the water garden, 
and the canal, one of the most interesting gardens in 
France. The canal is given in an old map as 150 feet 
wide and 4800 feet long, and le Notre adopted the 
unusual device of substituting waterpieces for parterres. 
A few years later he designed the gardens, waterpieces 
and grounds for Colbert at Sceaux (destroyed in 1798), 
and for Louvois who succeeded Colbert, he levelled 
and transformed wholesale the high ground surround- 
ing the stately house of Meudon (now destroyed). I 
imagine at no time in the history of architecture has 
there been such reckless extravagance in building great 
houses and having enormous gardens as in those first 
twenty-five years of the reign of Louis XIV. Sites 
were selected without the slightest thought of economy 
and le Notre was allowed to do pretty well what he 
liked, but there is this always to be said for him, that 
he was intent on his work and never thought of himself. 

B.F.A. [ 8 1 ] J 


In 1679 he was sent by Colbert to Italy to pick up 
any new ideas for the Royal palaces. He had introduc- 
tions to all the best people in Rome, and at an audience 
with the Pope he rushed forward, kissed the Pope on 
both cheeks and exclaimed : " Eh, bon jour, mon 
reverend pere, et que vous avez bon visage, et que je 
suis aise de vous voir en si bonne sant6." The Pope 
was delighted. Le Notre was elected a member of the 
Academy of Architecture in 1681 and attended one 
meeting- He found the members busy with " the 
colossal order " and was so bored that he never attended 
again. He died in 1700 at the age of eighty-seven and 
one wishes that more was known of him, for he was a 
simple-minded lovable man without guile of any sort. 
Saint-Simon says of him : " Le Notre avait une probit6, 
une exactitude et une droiture qui le faisaient estimer 
et aimer de tout le monde. Jamais il ne sortit de son 
etat ni ne se meconnut, et fut toujours parfaitement 
dsintress6." High praise from that austere critic. 
Le N6tre and Vauban, the great engineer, were perhaps 
the only people at the court of Louis XIV who deserved 
that praise. 

Jules Hardouin Mansart owed his immense and 
overpowering success to qualities very different from 

those which distinguished le Notre. He was born in 
1645 an d his real name was Hardouin, but on his 
mother's side he was a grand-nephew of Fran9ois Man- 
sart, and Saint-Simon says that on the death of that 
great architect in 1666 he took the name of Mansart 
" pour se faire connaitre et se dormer du relief/' but 
Saint-Simon, who hated and despised Mansart for his 
familiarity and pretensions, did not do justice to his 
energy and unscrupulous thrust, for he was undoubtedly 
very able. Jules Hardouin seems to have been a typical 
"faux bonhomme," as the French say, the sort of 
man who would slap a royal duke on the back, tell 
him a coarse story, and in cases get away with it, 
for his success was amazing. In 1674, by an obscure 
intrigue he managed to supersede Anthoine le Pautre 
in the design of Clagny for Madame de Montespan ; 
and from that time forward his fortune was made. 
He was brought into touch with the Kong. Colbert 
pushed him into the Academy and in 1676 the King 
entrusted him with the immense undertaking of Ver- 
sailles. This meant the end of the old regime and the 
definite inauguration of the new. Colbert had failed in 
his effort to keep the King in Paris. The works at the 
Louvre were abandoned and Louis XIV indulged him- 


self in his hobby of building palaces and country houses 
at great cost and with complete disregard of the interests 
of the State. 

In the years 1676-90 money was poured out like 
water on the royal houses and gardens. Mansart, who 
was extremely astute, had only to flatter the King's 
vanity and he got what he wanted, for Louis XIV was 
incredibly vain and believed himself to be an infallible 
judge of architecture, Saint-Simon says that Mansart 
used to lay traps for the King and applaud him for 
his wonderful judgment. It seems that Louis had 
an accurate eye for detail, but he had no taste, and 
" ce d6li6 ma9on," as Saint-Simon calls Mansart, had 
him in his hands. Versailles was the first opportunity. 
The site was naturally a very bad one, " le plus triste 
et le plus ingrat de tous les lieux," no view, no wood, 
no water, no earth, for it was all running sand or 
marsh. Everything had to be brought to the place, 
and both here and at Marly the King seems to have 
made a point of showing what he could do with a 
hopeless site. The cost of Versailles was enormous and 
never-ending. Against Vauban's advice he insisted on 
the aqueduct of Maintenon (1685-95) which had to be 
abandoned after costing nearly nine million francs and 



the lives of hundreds of workmen. When Louis began to 
reconstruct Versailles, there was on the site a hunting- 
box of Louis XIII, a small and rather charming house of 
brick and stone in the manner of Henri IV. Mansart 
transformed this into the gigantic palace of Versailles, of 
which Saint-Simon says, in my opinion justly, that " la 
main-d'ceuvre est exquise ; Tordonnance nulle ". Much 
the best thing in the architecture of Versailles is the 
Orangery, a work in the true grand manner, which in 
my opinion was probably not Mansart's work at all, 
but designed possibly from a sketch of le Notre by 
Desgodetz, a learned and able architect of the time. 
Fifty years later Voltaire 1 called Versailles " un chef- 
d'ceuvre de mauvais gout et de magnificence " and its 
chapel " ce colifichet fastueux 

qui du peuple eblouit les yeux 
et dont le connoisseur se raille." 

At the same time, owing to the glory of its gardens by 
le Notre, and the inimitable craftsmanship throughout, 
Versailles is in its way unique, and the perfect embodi- 
ment for good or bad of the art of the reign of 
Louis XIV. 
Not content with all that was being done at Versailles, 

1 " Le Temple du Goust," 1733. " chez Hierosme Print-all." 


on which over 25 million francs had been spent by 
1680, the King did not hesitate to embark on a fresh 
enterprise at Marly, eight kilometres from Versailles. 
Here he found a valley, a " repaire (haunt) des serpents 
et charognes (corpses), des crapauds (toads) et des gren- 
ouilles (frogs)." 1 The soil was so bad that according to 
the author of The Theory and Practice of Gardening, 
published at Paris in 1709, fruit grown at Marly was 
bitter to the taste, but confident that he could do any- 
thing, the King instructed Mansart to design one 
of the most idiotic country-houses ever conceived by 
man. The valley was converted into a building site 
with banks sloping down to a level garden with a water- 
piece down the centre. At the upper end was placed 
the King's house and along two sides were ranged 
twelve separate houses, six on each side, intended for 
the lodgment of courtiers and symbolizing the planets 
attending on le Roi Soleil. The total cost of Marly 
between 1679 anc ^ ^95 as given in the Comptes des 
Bailments du Roi was 11,611,918 fr. i8s. sd. Fontaine- 
bleau, St. Germain and " diverses maisons royales " 
all had to be maintained, and the total cost of Ver- 
sailles, the Grand Trianon and Clagny, 1664-171 5, was 

1 Saint-Simon. 


64,580,565 fr. 143. 6d., estimated as equivalent to some 
13,000,000 sterling. I visited Marly in 1921 and 
excepting " 1'abreuvoir," the drinking-place at the lower 
end, there is not a trace of building left, the terraces 
and waterpiece are now all covered with grass, and what 
were once avenues, pleached groves and alleys, are now 
woods on the hillside. 

Mansart was employed at Chantilly, and between 
1680-88 seems to have monopolised the whole official 
architecture of France. Bruand was still engaged on 
the Invalides, but Mansart, once his pupil and assistant, 
came in over his head in 1680, and was commissioned 
to design the second church, the Church of the Dome, 
under which lies the tomb of Napoleon. The interior 
is admirable, and from certain points of view the dome 
of the Invalides is very effective, but it cannot com- 
pare with Wren's design of St. Paul's as executed. 
The dome of the Invalides stands up like an isolated 
monument, too high and top-heavy for the substructure. 
Wren in his design of St. Paul's built up an admirable 
architectural composition leading up to the drum and 
dome as its culminating point. Mansart seems to have 
thought only of the dome, and more or less left the rest 
of the building to take care of itself. Mansart designed 


the Place Vendome in 1690-91, St. Cyr, Dampierre and 
other houses, and his last work was the chapel at 
Versailles. He died suddenly in 1708, having just 
lasted out his great reputation and only escaping by his 
death from a prosecution for embezzlement. 

So far as his career was concerned, Mansart was 
probably the most successful architect that has ever 
lived. When he died he was Chevalier de TOrdre de 
St. Michel, Comte de Sagonne,surintendant et ordonna- 
teur de ses (the Kong's) batiments et ses jardins aussi 
que des arts et manufactures royales," a post probably 
worth not less than some 12,000 l a year, with infinite 
possibilities of commissions and patronage, and he was 
also director of the Academies of painting, sculpture and 
architecture, practically in control of all the arts of France. 
With all his multifarious appointments, and with the 
constant necessity of keeping himself well to the fore and 
preserving his position with the King, it is quite certain 
that Mansart could not possibly have designed all the 
work attributed to him ; and that was the opinion of 
his contemporaries, but he had working for him some 
of the ablest young architects of his time, such as 

1 His official salaries as given in the Comptes des Bdtiments du Rai in 1699 
mounted to 60,866 livres. 





Desgodetz, Daviler, P Assurance and de Cotte, and it 
appears that his habit was to make rough sketches and 
leave the rest to his draughtsmen. That he was either 
very ignorant of construction or very careless is shown 
by the failures of his bridges. A bridge designed by 
him collapsed at Blois, so did the bridge at Moulins. 
Saint-Simon relates that when Louis XIV inquired about 
the bridge at Moulins, the governor of the province 
replied that he understood that it had last been heard of 
at Nantes. It was in consequence of these failures that 
the department of " Fonts et Chaussees " was established. 
The State had suffered dearly from the extravagance 
and carelessness of Mansart, who was too busy with 
his own interests to attend to his work. Saint- Simon 
says that most of his work was done by an architect 
" sous clef," and it seems probable that he was only 
saved from disaster by his very competent staff, and the 
admirable technique of the craftsmen at his command. 
For nearly all the work attributed to him is of consum- 
mate technical excellence, but Jules Hardouin Mansart 
was not an artist when all is said. " Ce ma9on," as 
Saint-Simon contemptuously calls him, " ce gros 
homme bien fait, d'un visage agreable, et de la lie du 
peuple," must have been a very able man to win and 


maintain his position in the court of Louis XIV for 
something like forty years, but like John Nash, " the 
Stucco King" of alater date,he was impudent,audacious, 
and unscrupulous, perhaps the most conspicuous ex- 
ample of the architect " entrepreneur " ; of the man whose 
heart is set not on architecture, but on his own personal 
interests, a great position and a lucrative practice. 

After twenty years of unrestrained extravagance in 
building by Louis XIV, aided and abetted by J. HL 
Mansart, the possibilities of building were pretty well 
exhausted by the end of the seventeenth century. M. 
Guiffrey, the editor of the Comptes des Bailments du 
Roiy says that from 1690 onwards the State was hardly 
able to find the money to maintain the royal palaces and 
establishments such as the Gobelins and the French 
Academy at Rome, which depended on State subsidies 
for their very existence. The brilliant promise of the 
early years of the reign was not realized. The King's 
vanity and ambition were landing him in all sorts of 
difficulties, and there was no money available, for by 
1690 the King and his courtiers had built themselves 
to the verge of bankruptcy. Moreover, the political 
and social conditions of France steadily grew worse 
and worse. The solemn hypocrisy of the latter days 



of Louis XIV was followed by the licence of the 
Regent, the disastrous financial juggling of Law and 
the gross egotism of Louis XV. Throughout the eigh- 
teenth century the menace of imminent catastrophe was 
becoming ever more insistent, and when it came the 
splendid tradition of French architecture, a tradition 
built up by many generations, was lost for ever. At the 
same time, Colbert's work was built upon a solid foun- 
dation, and the lines that he laid down in his reorgan- 
ization of the arts of France remained more or less 
unaltered till the latter part of the eighteenth century. 
The result was a very high level of technical compe- 
tence, but the independence and adventure of an 
earlier age were lost for ever. 



The Louvre (east front). 

College des Quatre Nations (Institut de France), 1660-72. 

La Rochelle. La Porte Royale* 

Porte St. Martin, 1674, Paris. 

Porte St. Denis, 1673, Paris. 

Porte St. Antoine, 1672, Paris. 

Hotel des Invalides, 1675, Paris. 



La Salpetriere, 1678, Paris. 

Place Vend6me, 1691, Paris. 

Hotel de Beauvais, Paris. 

Hotel de Hollande or Bizeuil, Paris. 

Sceaux, 1673 (destroyed). 

Meudon (destroyed). 

Marly, 1679 (destroyed). 

Clagny, 1676 (destroyed). 

Saint Cloud Gardens house destroyed 1870. 

Choisy-le-Roi (destroyed). 

Maintenon, the Aqueduct, 1685. 

Chantilly, the gardens, from 1663. 

Les Invalides, Mansart's church, 1683. 

Saint Cyr, 1685. 

Hotel de Ville, Aries, 1684. 

Tours, Tribunal de Commerce and Prefecture. 

Valognes, Hotel de Beaumont. 

Lyon, Hotel de Ville. 

Hotel de Ville, Dijon, 1682 and 1708. 

Dampierre, 1680. 

Notre Dame de la Gloriette, Caen, 1684-89. 

Montpellier, Chateau d'Eau, 1689. 

Porte du Peyrou, 1692. 
Abbeville, Hdtel de ViUe, 1685. 

The Carpet Factory. 

Lille, Porte de Paris, 1682, and Porte de Tournai. 
H6tel de Soubise, 1706 (Archives Nationales). 
H6tel de Nevers (Bibliothfeque Nationale). 

All dates approximate only. 



Chap- V. Illustrations* 

Versailles (the orangery). 

do. (the chapel). 

Les Invalides, Church of the Dome. 
Place Vendorne. 
IVlaintenon, the Aqueduct. 
The Petit Trianon. 



Mansarfs Successors. L 'Assurance ?, le Roux, de Cotte. 
Aubert. Daviler. Desgodetz. Delamaire. The H6tel de 
Soubise. Bqffrand's designs for Prince Bishops and Electors. 
Aubert and Chantilly. Oppenord. The CumlUs. ServandonL 
His work at Nancy. 

Jules Hardouin Mansart died in 1708, having outlived 
his own reputation and his period, for the immense 
building activity of the earlier years of the reign of 
Louis XIV came to an end about the year 1690-91. 
Thirty years' extravagance had exhausted the savings 
of Mazarin, and after 1690 the King had other things 
to think of. Mme de Maintenon had established her 
disastrous ascendancy over the King, Then came the 
troubles of the Spanish Succession and Marlborough's 
victorious campaigns. The treasury was empty and a 
few years later most of those who had not wasted their 
substance in building to please the King, were ruined 
by Law's fantastic finance in 1716. The decorators 
were active and very accomplished, but compared with 
the seventeenth century not much building was done, 


and the leading French architects had to look to prince- 
bishops and electors, who called them in to design 
immense palaces in the French manner, but seldom 
paid them for their labours. 

The Mansart dynasty was carried on by his staff, 
1' Assurance, le Roux, de Cotte and Aubert. Neither 
Daviler nor Desgodetz, both of whom had been work- 
ing for Mansart, left their mark on the architecture 
of the time ; yet both were accomplished architects and 
draughtsmen. Finding that there was no room in Paris 
for anyone but Mansart, Daviler retired to Mont- 
pellier, where he carried out the Porte du Peyrou, and 
the attractive Chateau d'Eau, and wrote an excellent 
treatise on architecture. He died young in 1700. 
Desgodetz, to whom I attribute the Orangery at Ver- 
sailles, was a beautiful draughtsman who probably 
knew more about the details of Roman architecture than 
Mansart, de Cotte and the whole Academy of Architec- 
ture put together. His work, " Les Edifices Antiques 
de Rome," was remarkable not only for the immense 
labour of its preparation, but also for its consummate 
draughtsmanship, and I doubt if there has ever been 
made a finer set of measured drawings of architecture. 
" Pierre Cailleteau dit TAssurance " built many hotels 


in Paris after 1700, and was probably the most capable 
of Mansart 's numerous staff. He, Aubert and le Roux 
were typical of the successful French architects of the 
first half of the eighteenth century. Good men of 
affairs, skilful planners and competent designers, the 
obedient servants of the corrupt but cheerful society of 
the time, they seem to have been architects without 
very high ideals or any particular convictions, and it 
took two generations to recover from the deadly 
influence of Jules Hardouin Mansart. 

The best of them was undoubtedly Robert de Cotte, 
born in 1656. About the year 1685 he married Man- 
sart's sister-in-law, Catharine Bodin. Two years later 
through Mansart's influence he was made an Acad- 
emician and in 1699 was appointed an " architecte du 
Roi " and director of the Academy of Architecture. On 
Mansart's death in 1708 he succeeded him as " premier 
architecte du Roi," finished the chapel at Versailles, 
and designed the high altar of Notre Dame in Paris, 
to take the place of a design made by Mansart fifteen 
years before which was so bad that it was stopped at 
once. Mansart had done well for his relations, for by 
1708 de Cotte was in receipt of an annual salary of 
nearly 30,000 francs a year with 4000 francs a year for his 




son, an incompetent youth of twenty. After Mansart's 
death, he was recognized as the leading architect of his 
time and was in great request both in France and in 
foreign countries* In 1712 he prepared a scheme for 
rebuilding the palace of Buen Retiro near Madrid, to 
suggestions made by that able lady, the Princesse des 
Ursins. In the year following he was called in by 
Joseph Clement, Elector of Cologne, to design various 
houses. The Elector was extremely anxious to be in 
the fashion, but hoped to be so at other people's ex- 
pense. De Cotte prepared designs for a villa on the 
Rhine, and for rebuilding the castle of Poppelsdorf , and 
for a palace at Bonn. The work at Bonn was put in 
hand and is an interesting and characteristic building 
with an inner circular court, but the Elector never paid 
up, and de Cotte was advised by his representatives in 
Germany not to supply any more details till he did. 
De Cotte prepared designs for the chateau of Frescati, 
near Metz, for the due de Coislin, Bishop of Metz, a 
building destroyed in 1800 and said to have cost 
1,200,000 livres. He was employed by the Bishop of 
Verdun in 1725 to design him a vast palace, and in 1728 
by Cardinal Armand Gaston Maximilian de Rohan, 
Bishop of Strasbourg, to make some extensive additions 

[ 97 ] G 


to his chateau of Saverne, now best known for the 
episode of " the Captain of Zaberne." Saverne is about 
halfway between Nancy and Strasbourg. The chateau 
was turned into barracks, and little is left but remains 
of two fafades and gardens once of great magnificence. 
These prince bishops and electors regarded their 
bishoprics solely as a source of income for their personal 
expenditure, and very seldom made a serious attempt to 
discharge their liabilities or pay their architects. Of de 
Cotte's work in Paris the most famous was the decora- 
tion of the Hotel de Toulouse. He died in 1735, not 
perhaps a great architect, but shrewd and adroit, and 
Blondel says that he was a man of honour and humanity. 
The architect who most resembled de Cotte was 
Germain Boffrand, born at Nantes in 1667, and trained 
in Mansart's office. He designed several hotels in Paris, 
including the Hotel Amelot in the rue Saint Dominique 
which is remarkable for its oval court and very inter- 
esting plan, and the decorations of the Hotel de Soubise 
(now Archives Nationales) which had been built in 1706 
from the designs of Delamaire. The decorations of the 
Hotel de Soubise are very attractive in their way, but as 
was said by critics at the time it is not the way of 
architecture. The cornice has ceased to exist and the 



walls run out into the ceiling behind a camouflage of 
quirks and twirligigs without any logical justification. 
The odd thing is that when these decorations were 
executed, Boffrand was becoming an old man, and they 
are quite unlike his rather heavy architecture. He must 
have been caught in the shortlived fashion for the 
Baroque set by Oppenord, Meissonnier and Cuvilies, 
and not yet exploded by Nicholas Cochin in the 
Mercure de Paris, 1750-52, for later on Boffrand himself 
condemned this fashion for torturing buildings into ab- 
normal shapes in which " la bizarrerie est admiree sous 
le nom de genie." The Hotel de Soubise is still one of 
the best examples of its kind, quite admirable in execu- 
tion, and in good hands this manner has a fascination 
of its own. The most austere formalist will find it hard 
to resist the attractions of buildings such as the Amalien- 
burg in the grounds of the Nymphenburg Palace at 
Munich, that dainty little hunting-lodge, built by an 
elector to amuse his wife, with its decorations in blue, 
canary, and silver, but Frangois Cuvilies had a genius 
for this work, and in clumsy hands it is very soon intol- 
erable. Moreover it offended the deep-seated French 
instinct for pure form, and it went out of fashion after 
the middle of the eighteenth century. There is little 



trace of it in the work of the Gabriels, father and son. 
It was altogether too trivial for their robust and mascu- 
line intelligence. Meanwhile Boffrand was extensively 
employed on designing enormous houses between 
1720-40, and he published a book of his designs for 
various German princes, which includes a vast hunting- 
lodge with a central circular hall 60 feet in diameter with 
a look-out above it 120 feet high, and palaces at Nancy, 
Malgrange, Luneyille and Wiirzburg, all on a gigantic 
scale and never completed. He entered for the famous 
competition of 1748 for the Place Louis XV (now Place 
de la Concorde), but was unsuccessful. Boffrand died in 
1754, aged 88, having lost most of his money in specu- 
lation, and been unable to retrieve his fortunes by the 
miniatures and snuffboxes with which princes and 
bishops were in the habit of rewarding his services. He 
appears to have been an excellent sort of man, a very 
human and irresponsible person of a rare and attractive 
type. Like Vanbrugh, but with less ability, Boffrand 
wrote plays, and like Vanbrugh he suffered from a 
megalomania which seems to have grown on him with 
advancing years. Boffrand, with less ability and less 
imagination than Vanbrugh, had more knowledge of 
technique, but it appears both from his writings and his 






works that he never went to the heart of the matter, 
never realized that architecture is not play-acting, but a 
serious art limited by practical conditions. 

Servandoni (1695-1766), an Italian born at Florence, 
also seems to have arrived at architecture by way of the 
theatre, for he made his reputation by his skill in 
designing theatrical scenery, and staging " spectacles," 
and he was the greatest showman of the eighteenth 
century. He is said to have designed the scenery for 
more than sixty operas with scenes ranging from the 
palace of Nineveh to the mosque of Scanderbeg. In 
1731 he was admitted a member of the Academy of 
Painting, and presented as his diploma work a picture 
of ruins, an anticipation of the subjects which Hubert 
Robert was to find so profitable later on. In 1732 he 
won the competition for the completion of St. Sulpice 
in Paris, and the west front was carried out from his 
designs. After this he seems to have given up architec- 
ture and devoted himself to stage design. In 1738 a 
series of prodigious " spectacles " was given in the 
Salle des Machines in the Tuileries. The Pope made 
him a count of the Order of St. John Lateran and a 
member of the military Order of Christ. In 1749 ^ e 
was invited to London to direct the illuminations to 



celebrate the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, and he seems 
to have been invited to most of the courts of Europe, 
including Vienna, and to have nearly ruined the duke 
of Wiirtemburg. He had immense opportunities, but 
" ce genie rare et excellent/ 5 as Blondel calls him, was 
hopelessly generous and improvident, and died a poor 
man in 1766. 

Delamaire's reputation rests chiefly on his first 
design for the Hotel de Soubise (Archives Nationales) ; 
Jean Aubert's on the amazing stables that he designed 
for the due de Bourbon at Chantilly* The due had 
made an immense fortune in the Mississippi Company 
under Law's " system " just before the collapse of that 
financier in 1720, and he proceeded to spend it on these 
stables, 579 feet long by 56 feet wide by 42 feet 6 inches 
high with huge pavilions in the centre and at the ends. 
The stables provided stalls for 240 horses. The stalls, 
it is true, were only 4 feet 6 inches wide, but the plump 
French horses were no doubt glad of support, and 
economy here left Aubert free to give the stables of 
Chantilly the most magnificent fa9ade of any building 
of their kind that has ever been built. Aubert's work 
on the stables at Chantilly is more brilliant than any- 
thing by Mansart at Versailles, and apart from their 


plan, the stables at Chantilly are perhaps the finest 
example now existing of French architecture in the 
grand manner. 

Jean Courtonne (1671-1739) and Jean Silvan Cartaud 
(1675-1758) were famous architects in their day. 
Blondel thought highly of them, but they are now just 
names. Apart from the two Gabriels among the 
architects, and Oppenord, Cuvilies and Meissonnier 
among the decorators, the most distinguished French 
architect in the eighteenth century was not a Parisian 
but, like Wood of Bath, a provincial architect. Em- 
manuel Her6 de Corny was born at Lun&ville in 1705, 
the son of an official in the service of the Duke of 
Lorraine. In 1745, Stanislas Leczinsky, titular King of 
Poland, having no kingdom and little to do, began a 
grand scheme of town-planning at Nancy. There were 
then two separate towns, the old town to the north 
dating from the twelfth century, and the new town 
begun in the sixteenth century, near the unfinished palace 
that Boffrand had designed for the Duke of Lorraine. 
Between the towns was an unoccupied open space and 
Herd's problem was to link up the two towns. He 
began at the south end with the fine square of the Place 
Royale, with buildings on three sides. The side opposite 


the Hotel de Ville was left free and opened on to the 
Place de la Carriere, 810 feet long by 180 feet wide. 
At the end of the Carriere he formed the " H&nicycle," 
a " place " 300 feet long with hemicycles at each end. 
From this one passes to the Hotel de PIntendance and 
gardens beyond once laid out in the manner of le Notre, 
but since destroyed by the landscape gardener. Alto- 
gether a masterly design admirable in detail and Herd's 
work at Nancy is one of the best things of its kind 
in France, carried out at less than half the cost of 
Marly. The whole scheme is delightfully simple and 
logical, and yet so varied in detail that it is full of 
unexpected charm. Keenly alive to balance and sym- 
metry, Here played with perfect mastery on motives 
that in less competent hands would have seemed 
exuberant and out of place. His work at Nancy 
remains a masterpiece, less extensive but more sump- 
tuous than what the elder Wood did at Bath for Ralph 
Allen. Hre holds a place of honour among the great 
French architects of the eighteenth century, but of 
himself little is known except that he was the father of 
sixteen children, that he finally went out of his mind 
and died at Lun&dlle in 1763 at the age of 57. 

Here's work at Nancy is of peculiar interest in 




another way as evidence of artistic intelligence outside 
Paris. De Brosses in his letters from Italy (1740) 
pointed out how poor Paris was in the " maniere de 
disposer les points de vue," vistas and perspectives, and 
that except the Place Vendome and the Place Royale, 
there was nothing to compare with what he saw at 
Rome, for the Place Louis XV (Place de la Concorde) 
did not exist when he wrote. But in the provinces some 
admirable examples of civic improvement and town- 
planning date from the eighteenth century. The Prom- 
enade de Peyrou at Montpellier is an early example. 
At Orleans, Saumur, and Tours, vistas in connection 
with roads and bridges were deliberately planned. 
There are fine " places " and promenades at Bordeaux, 
Perigueux and Amiens, and that remarkable " Prom- 
enade des Terreaux " in the little town of Avallon 
(Yonne) laid out and planted in 1720. At Aix-en- 
Provence there is a characteristic example of an eigh- 
teenth-century promenade, which de Brosses describes. 
" Les maisons sont hautes, belles, et a Pitalienne. 
Quatre rangs d'arbres y forment deux contre-allees ou 
Ton se promene, et une longue allee au milieu ornee 
de quatre grandes fontaines." In the preface to his 
" Monumens friges en France a la Gloire de Louis 

XV " (1765) Patte refers with pride to the public works 
carried out in the provinces in the reign of Louis XV, 
such as the quays on the banks of the Rhone and Saone 
and the Hospital with a facade nearly 900 feet long at 
Lyon. Nantes, he says, had been transformed almost 
into a new town. Nancy, Lun&ville and Commercy, 
" enfin toute la Lorraine," had been altered out of 
knowledge, and changes scarcely less important had 
been carried out at Besangon, Metz, La Rochelle, 
Rennes, Alen?on, Tours, Caen, Rouen, Dijon, Nimes, 
Montpellier, Aix, Lille, Valenciennes, Reims, Versailles 
and elsewhere. Triumphal arches, not always very 
happy, were built wherever possible, and the depart- 
ment of Fonts et Chaussees, established by Trudaine in 
1743, was busily employed in improving the roads 
and bridges of France. Mansart's failures had shown 
the urgent necessity of more scientific bridge building, 
and Patte says that at the beginning of the eighteenth 
century, there were only four " grandes routes bien 
pavees " in France. The serious attempt at public im- 
provement and town-planning was perhaps the most 
important advance made by French architecture in the 
eighteenth century. 



Chap. VI. Illustrations. 

Chantilly, the Stables. 
Hotel de Soubise, exterior. 

(Archives Rationales) y interior. 
Nancy, the Hemi cycle. 
St. Sulpice. 
IMontpellier, the Chateau d'Eau. 

[ 107 J 


The Gabriels, Jacques Jules. The Bridge and the E<v$ch& at Blots. 
Rennes y the Hdtel de Ville. Bordeaux. Place de la Bourse. 
La Rochelle, the Cathedral. Ange Jacques GdbrieL The com- 
petition for the Place de la Concorde. The Ecole Militaire. The 
Petit Trianon. The last of the old Rdgime. Soufflot and the 
Pantheon. Contant d'lvry. Patte. Mique. Louis. The end 
of a great period. Examples. 

With the exception of Here, who corresponds to our 
Wood of Bath, de Cotte and Aubert the magnifi- 
cent, the work of the Epigoni, the architects who carried 
on after the great outburst of building for Louis XIV 
had died away, is not very interesting. It was perfectly 
accomplished but not always convincing, and it is 
marked by a lack of enterprise that on occasion makes 
it even tedious, better than the " pompier " manner of 
the nineteenth century, but only because it was in 
better taste, and altogether superior in technique. Two 
men stand out conspicuously among the French archi- 
tects of the eighteenth century, the two Gabriels, 
father and son. Jacques Jules Gabriel, the father, was 





born in 1667, the son f a niason contractor whose wife 
was a cousin of J. H. Mansart. In 1687 Gabriel's father 
bought him the post of " Controleur general alternatif 
des Bastimens" from Mansart for 90,000 francs, a 
characteristic instance of Mansart's cupidity, and of the 
opportunities of jobbery that existed in spite of Colbert's 
efforts, for Gabriel was only twenty at the time. His 
first known work was Choisi, a great house on the 
banks of the Seine, for Mile de Montpensier, with 
gardens laid out by le Notre. He designed some impor- 
tant but not very interesting houses in Paris, and his 
best work was done in the provinces. So far, building 
enterprise had been limited to royal palaces and great 
houses within a few miles of Paris. The Invalides was 
the one effort of Louis XIV in public buildings. The 
Regency had neither the money nor the inclination to 
do anything, and it was not till the reign of Louis XV, 
with all his faults, that any serious attempt was made 
to carry out necessary public works such as bridges, and 
to improve disorderly cities by consecutive and con- 
sidered schemes of architecture. Jacques Jules Gabriel 
was a pioneer in this work. In 1716 he designed 
the great bridge at Blois and the fine Evech, bridges 
at Poissy, Charenton, Pontoise, Saint Maur and else- 


where, and in 1720, after a great fire at Rennes in 
Brittany, he was called in to design the Hotel de Ville, 
one of the most attractive eighteenth-century municipal 
buildings in France. This was followed in 1728 by his 
memorable work at Bordeaux, the Place Royale (now 
Place de la Bourse) on the quay overlooking the river 
a splendid example of civic architecture. His last work 
was the fine cathedral church of La Rochelle. Gabriel 
died at Fontainebleau in 1742, full of honours : " Sieur 
de Berney, premier architecte du Roi, Inspecteur 
General des Batiments du Roi/' the ablest architect 
that had appeared in France since the days of Fra^ois 
Mansart. Only one architect in the eighteenth century 
surpassed him and that was his son, Ange Jacques 
. Gabriel, born in 1698. 

At the age of thirty Ange Jacques Gabriel married 
the daughter of the first secretary of the due d'Antin, 
Directeur General des Batiments, and was admitted to 
the second class of the Academy. In 1742 he succeeded 
his father as " premier architecte du Roi ", and his 
career was one of uninterrupted success. He was 
employed at Versailles, Marly, Choisi, and Compiegne, 
and he had to attend to the royal princesses, and the 
far more exacting demands of Madame de Pompadour 


and Madame du Barry. His employment at Versailles 
must have been exasperating in the last degree with its 
constant changes, cancelled orders and lack of money. 
About the middle of the eighteenth century he re- 
modelled much of the interior of the palace, and pre- 
pared a scheme known as the " Grand projet," for the 
removal of the Cour de Marbre, the last vestige of the 
old hunting-lodge of Louis XIII and the erection of a 
new fa?ade on the entrance front. This scheme was 
dropped, but the Salle de 1'Opera was completed in 
1766, after hanging fire for some twenty years. It is 
not the happiest of Gabriel's works, but it was starved 
by the chronic lack of money, indeed in 1773 the work 
at Versailles was so slow that Mme du Barry wanted 
Gabriel to throw the contractor into prison. His real 
opportunity came in 1748. In that year a grand com- 
petition was held for a monument to Louis XV. 
The idea was to celebrate the virtues of " un bon 
prince, un vrai h&ros de I'humanite," so Patte calls 
him the " hero " of Mme de Pompadour, the Pare aux 
Cerfs and Mme du Barry. Monuments were begun 
but not always completed at Bordeaux, Valenciennes, 
Rennes, Nancy, Reims and Rouen, as well as at Paris. 
Apparently no specific programme was laid down and 



anybody could suggest what they liked. All the archi- 
tects of the Academy were invited to compete and over 
fifty designs were submitted. The first difficulty was 
to find a site, and to solve the difficulty the King pre- 
sented to the city a waste piece of ground lying between 
the Tuileries gardens and the Champs Elysees. A 
fresh competition was held, and all the architects of the 
Academy except eight competed. De Cotte declined, 
saying he was too old. None of the designs was con- 
sidered to be quite satisfactory. Marigny, the director- 
general, produced a design of his own, which he 
assured Louis XV combined every merit, but the King 
was no fool and in the result he appointed Gabriel to 
make a " reunion " of all the best points in the plans 
submitted, and to carry out the work, a grossly unfair 
proceeding, but one which resulted in the finest public 
" place " in France, and one of the finest in the world, 
the Place de la Concorde. Gabriel's design for the 
Champs Elysees was never carried out, with the result that 
a great opportunity was lost, and the existing Place de la 
Concorde has been so much altered that it does far less 
than justice to Gabriel's layout ; but his splendid build- 
ings on the north side still remain to show something 
of what might have been but for the nineteenth century. 




The cole Militaire, with the Petit Trianon at Ver- 
sailles, the greatest of Gabriel's works, was begun in 
1751, but it was carried on under great difficulties and 
not finished till 1773. Incomplete as it is, the ficole 
Militaire is the noblest example of Neo-classic architec- 
ture in Paris, the last word of a magnificent tradition that 
it had taken over two hundred years to form and which 
never ought to have been abandoned. The Petit Tri- 
anon, begun in 1763 for Madame du Barry, was one of the 
latest of Gabriel's works, and sums up all the great qual- 
ities of his design, his instinct for proportion, his power 
of selection, his restraint and the sureness of his taste. 

Gabriel retired from practice in 1775 and died in 
1782. Like Sir William Chambers in England, he 
was " ultimus Romanorum," the last of the tradition- 
alists. He was a great architect, and a strong fearless 
man who went his own way, and was resolute enough 
to resist the intrigues of Marigny, backed by his all- 
powerful sister, Madame de Pompadour. Gabriel was 
the last undeviating adherent of the national tradition 
of his country in architecture, but the control was 
slipping out of the hands of architects into those of 
amateurs such as the Comte de Caylus, and after the 
Revolution, of pedants such as Quatremere de Quincy. 



Nicholas Cochin in his memoir of the Comte de Caylus 
says, " Les gens de condition (a characteristic eigh- 
teenth-century phrase) font sans doute honneur aux 
corps auxquels ils s'attachent, mais le malheur est 
qu'ils le savent trop bien, et qu'il est rare que leur 
protection ne deg&iere pas en quelque peu de tyran- 
nic." The Comte de Caylus was a vain, arbitrary and 
vindictive amateur, and the French Academies of Paint- 
ing and Sculpture paid dearly for placing their necks 
under his heel. The Academy of Architecture had the 
good sense to keep him at arm's length, but the amateur 
was steadily encroaching on the province of the expert. 
Till Voltaire and Diderot, literary men had left the arts 
alone. It is true there were treatises on architecture in 
abundance ; they were written by architects and rather 
dull, but the Romantic movement was advancing fast. 
It broke through the thin barrier of technical knowledge 
and treated the arts as free for all, often with most 
amusing results, for Diderot's pungent criticisms of the 
Salons (1761-71) are still the best things of their kind 
ever written. It was a bad thing for the arts when they 
became what they have remained material for copy 
for the literary man. Ever since those days the literary 
man, " the critic/' has been telling artists what they 

ought to do and how they ought to do it. If the Comte 
de Caylus was bad, Quatremere de Quincy was worse, 
a ferocious pedant who insisted on the literal revival of 
the antique as then understood. When in 1791 the 
Constituent Assembly decided to transform Ste. Gene- 
vieve into the Pantheon, Quatremere de Quincy drew 
up the programme which Soufflot was to follow. The 
building was to be an allegorical expression of " the 
duties of man in society," and no artist was to be 
allowed to take part in the decoration who had not 
steeped himself in " le gout antique " as taught by 
Winckelmann and practised by Canova in Italy. The 
whole affair of the Pantheon was typical of the self- 
deception of the people of Paris at the end of the 
eighteenth century, full of misguided enthusiasm, 
throwing overboard all standards hitherto accepted, 
and accepting blindly unsound and unhistorical as- 
sumptions. Soufflot, who was a generous and en- 
thusiastic man, might, had he been left to himself, have 
carried on the work of Gabriel, so too might Contant 
d'lvry who designed the original church of the 
Madeleine in Paris, and the great cathedral at Arras, 
destroyed by the Germans in the late war. Contant 
d'lvry, who died in 1777, a famous man in his time, is 

B.F.A. I]C H2 


now almost forgotten, and indeed we have reached the 
end of a very great period of architecture. Its last 
official interpreter had been Jacques Fra^ois Blondel 
(1705-74), not a great architect but a teacher and author 
of amazing industry, and a sound and very competent 
critic with a real appreciation of the finer qualities of 
architecture. The famous theatre at Bordeaux, built 
from the design of Victor Louis, 1773-80, was almost 
the last example of the traditional manner in France. 

Pierre Patte (1722-1812) carried on Blondel's work, 
but the fashion had moved away from the architects to 
the archaeologists, and the Revolution was at hand. 
Richard Mique who had followed Her at Nancy, and 
succeeded Gabriel as " premier architecte " of Louis 
XVI, was condemned as a royalist with his son on 
July 1794 and executed on the following day. The 
Academies went down with the throne, and the Revolu- 
tion opened the doors to all sorts of fantastic theories in 
the arts as well as in literature and politics. A genera- 
tion had arisen that repudiated the great tradition of 
French Neo-classic and believed itself to have redis- 
covered the secret of architecture in a slavish revival of 
the antique. In the introduction to a book by J. M. 
Peyre published in 1795, the editor asked in what age had 





architecture reached a higher degree of perfection, and 
asserted that such buildings as the Hotel de la Monnaie, 1 
the Oddon 2 and the Pantheon, 3 and the taste of the 
young artists of the time, were as far removed from the 
architecture of the beginning of the eighteenth century 
as that architecture was from Gothic. The immediate 
result was an absurdly pedantic revival of classical 
forms. The break with tradition meant the loss of any 
definite clue and standard of values, and if it was open 
to architects to design a hospital like a temple of 
Aesculapius, it was equally open to them to design a 
house like a medieval castle, and this they very soon 
proceeded to do, for the Gothic revival followed hard on 
the heels of Napoleonic classic, with the futile idea of 
bolstering up the monarchy by a medieval revival. After 
Chalgrin, Brongniart, Gondouin, Vignon, Percier and 
Fontaine, Viollet-le-Duc was inevitable with Pierrefonds 
and Carcassonne. 

The results of this summary survey are these : The 
Renaissance in France in the sixteenth century is not 
to be regarded as an isolated movement but as the first 
step in a continuing development which reached its 
culminating point in the third quarter of the eighteenth 

1 Antoine, 1771. 2 WaiUy & Peyre, 1782. 8 Soufflot. 



century, when it went down before the rising tide of the 
Romantic movement. The three hundred years, from 
the date of the first Italian expedition to that of the 
French Revolution, include three well-marked periods, 
the first from the Italian expedition of 1494 to the 
accession of Henri IV nearly a hundred years later, the 
second from the beginning of the seventeenth century 
to about 1661 , when Louis XIV began his personal rule 
and Colbert brought in the new regime, and the third 
from the advent of Colbert till the break-up of tradition 
in the last quarter of the eighteenth century. Each of 
these three periods has its subdivisions. In the earlier 
years of the sixteenth century, French architecture was 
represented by the efforts of the master-builders in the 
new manner with the help of the Italian ornamentalists, 
and the rest of the century saw the coming of the archi- 
tects, who introduced formal method into what so far 
had been little more than a series of experiments. At 
the end of the sixteenth century, owing to what was 
almost civil war, there came a detente, but with Henri IV 
architecture made a fresh start, and what had so far 
been a fashion of the Court became a vernacular style 
understood and practised throughout France as a matter 
of course. In the reign of Louis XIII, the Italian 



motive reasserted itself to a considerable extent, but it 
was interpreted by French architects in their own indi- 
vidual and characteristic manner. The third period 
begins with the personal rule of Louis XIV, and the 
advent of Colbert in 1661. Architecture henceforward 
became official, more or less a State affair rigidly con- 
trolled. One result was to standardize French archi- 
tecture, and replace the individual artist by the official 
architect, a loss in adventure, but the technique of 
architecture and the allied crafts steadily advanced, and 
the culminating point of Neo-classical architecture in 
France was reached soon after the middle of the eigh- 
teenth century, and was lost when the younger Gabriel 
retired from practice in 1775. After that came the 
deluge, pedantic archaeology instead of architecture, 
followed by wild and ill-conceived attempts to revive 
medieval methods, ending finally in the bankruptcy of 
architecture in the nineteenth century, and the total 
repudiation of the past in the twentieth. France is still 
very rich in examples of architecture extending over 
eight or nine hundred years, but it is sad to think of 
what she has lost. MM. de Foville and le Sourd in 
their handbook Les Chdteaux de France refer to some 
1670 houses as still existing, but " Tobituaire des chefs- 


cTceuvre de Tarchitecture est immense ". The Chateau 
de Madrid, la Muette, the Tuileries, the chapel of the 
Valois, and some of the most famous seventeenth- 
century Hotels in Paris have all gone, so too have great 
houses in the country such as Gaillon, St. Maur, 
Charleval and Verneuil of the sixteenth century, Mon- 
ceaux, Richelieu, Berni, Liencour, Meudon, Marly, 
Sceaux, Choisi, Clagny, St. Cloud of the seventeenth 
century, and these are only a few names taken at ran- 
dom, but they should not be utterly forgotten. It is well 
nowadays to turn back from time to time to the study 
of the masterpieces of the past. Only in this way is it 
possible to form well founded standards of values, and 
to hand on the torch to those who will follow us. 


Blois, the bridge, 1716. 

The Evch6. 

The Stables, Chantilly, 1719-35. 
Rennes, Hotel de Ville, 1734. 

Hotel de Soubise (Archives Nationales), Interior, 1725. 
Avallon, Promenade des Terreaux, 1720. 
Juvisy (Seine-et-Oise), Pont des Belles Fontaines, 1728. 
Bordeaux, Place de la Bourse, 1728. 
St. Sulpice, Paris, fafade, 1733. 



La Rochelle, the Cathedral, 1741. 

Rouen, Porte Guillaume, 1749* 

Arras, the Cathedral, 1753-1833. 

Place Louis XV (Place de la Concorde), 1748-72. 

Ecole Militaire, Paris, 1751-73. 

Compiegne, chateau, begun, 1755. 

Salle de FOpera, Versailles, 1748-66. 

Petit Trianon, Versailles, 1763. 

Nancy, Place Royale 

La Carri&re 

The Hemicycle 

Hotel de Ville }> 1735-1761. 

The Porte Stanislas 

Porte Desilles, the Arc de Triomphe^ 
Toulouse, Le Capitole. 
Bordeaux, Porte Dijeaux, 1748. 
Rouen, Porte Guillaume, 1749. 
Dijon, Porte Guillaume, 1783. 
Porte Ste. Croix, Chalons-sur-Marne* 
Nantes, Prefecture. 
Moulins, Lycee Banville. 
Menars, 1765. 
Pont de Tours, 1765-76. 
The Madeleine, Paris, 1764-1842* 
The Pantheon, Paris, 1764, 1780* 
Hotel de la Monnaie, Paris, 1771. 
The Odeon, Paris, 1783. 
Bordeaux, the Theatre, 1773-1780. 

All dates approximate only* 


Chap. VII. Illustrations. 

Bordeaux, Hotel de la Bourse. 
La Rochelle, the Cathedral. 
Ecole MHitaire. 
The Madeleine 
The Pantheon. 



Abaquesne, potter of Rouen, 28 
Academy of Architecture, 64, 65, 68, 

72, 74, 83, no, 112 
Aix-en-Provence, 105, 106 
Aix-la-Chapelle, 102 
Alberti, 12 
Alen?on, 106 
Amboise, 5 
Amiens, 105 
Amyot, 2, i 
Ancy-le-Franc, 8 
Anet, 23, 30 

Ango, Jacques, 15 ; Manoir d% 15 
Anne of Austria, 5 1 
Architectes du Roi,. 62, 73, 74, 96, 1 10 
Ardres, 5 

Arras Cathedral, 115 
Aubert, Jean, 95, 96, 102, 108 
Antin, due d% no 

Avallon, Promenade desTerreaux, 105 
Avranches, 43 
Azay-le-Rideau, 10, 24 

Balleroy, 48 

Barry, Madame du, in, 113 

Beauvais, Cathedral, 9, 20 

Bellay, Jean du, Cardinal, 21, 22, 23 

Berni, 48, 120 

Bernini, 62, 69, 70, 71 

Berretini, Pietro, 69 

Berthelot, Gilles, 10 

Besan?on, 106 

Blois, Chateau, 14, 35, 49, 50 ; Cath- 
edral, 53 ; Bridge, 89, 109 

Blondel, 29, 65, 70, 71, 72, 74, 98, 
102, 103, 1 1 6 

Bodin, Catharine, 96 

BofErand, Germain, 98, 99, 100 

Bohier, Thomas, 10, 25 

Bologna, 34 ; Palazzo Albergati, 12 

Bonn, Palace at, 97 

Bordeaux, 105, no, in ; Place 
Royale (now Place de la Bourse), 
110 ; Theatre, 116 

Bray, Sir Reginald, 34 

Br6cy, 48 

Breton, Gilles le, 9, 14 

Brongniart, 117 

Brosse, Salomon de, 35, 44, 45, 105 

Browne, Lancelot, 77 

Bruand, Liberal, 73, 74, 87 

Bruyere, la, 35 

Buen Retiro, Palace of (near Madrid), 

Bullant, Jean, 25, 27, 28-29, 30. 3*, 33 

Bullet, Pierre, 74 

Caen, L,yc6e Malherbe, 54 ; Notre 

Dame de la Gloriette, 55 
Cailleteau, Pierre (L > Assurance), 74- 

Canova, 115 


Carbon, Blaise, 48 

Carcassonne, 117 

Carpentras College, 54 

Cartaud, Jean Silvan, 103 

Catherine de Medici, 25, 29, 35 

Caylus, Comte de, 113, 114, 115 

Cellini, n 

Cerceau, du, 14, 29, 36, 45 ; Jacques 

Androuet (pfcre), 35, 42; Bap- 

tiste, fils, 35 ; Jacques, fils, 35, 

42 ; Jean, 45 
Certosa of Pavia, 10 
Chalgrin, 117 

Chambers, Sir William, 113 
Chambige, 9 
Chambord, 5, 12, 14 
Champeverne, Florimond de, 13, 14 
Chantilly, 81, 87 ; CMtelet or Petit 

Chateau, 29 ; Stables of Due de 

Bourbon, 102, 103 
Charenton, 23 ; Protestant Temple, 

44 ; Bridge, 109 
Charles I (England) 71 
Charles VIII, 5, 6, 14 
Charles, Count of Maine, 5 
Charleval, 35, 120 
Chateaubriand, n 
Chavigny in Touraine, 46 
Chenonceaux, 10, 24, 25 
Choisi, 109, no, 120 
Clagny, 83, 86, 120 
Clagny, sieur de, 32 
Clement, Jacques, 35 
Clement, Joseph, Elector of Cologne, 


dermont, Abb6 of, 32 
Cochin, Nicholas, 99, 114 
Coislin, Due de (Bishop of Mete), 97 
Colbert, 40, 49, 51, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 79, 81, 

82, 83, 91, 109, 118. 

Commercy, 106 

Compifegne, no 

Cottart, 73 

Cotte, Robert de, 74, 87, 95-9$, 108- 


Coxilommiers-en-Brie, 44 
Courtonne, Jean, 103 
Cuvilie's, Fran?ois, 99, 103 

d'Amboise, George, Cardinal, 10 

Dampierre, 88 

d'Argenville, 47 

Daviler, 89, 95 

de FoviQe, 119 

Delamaire, 98, 102 

de TOrme, Jean, 25 

de rOrme, Philibert, 8, 14, 21, 22, 23, 

24, 25, 26, 27, s8> 29, 30, 31, 3^, 

de Rohan, Armand Gaston, Cardinal 

(Bishop of Strasbourg), 97 
Desgodetz, 85, 89, 95 
Diderot, 114 

Dieppe, 15 ; choir of St. R&ni, 53 
Dijon college, 54 
d'lvry, Contant, 115 
Dominique de Cortonne (II Bocca- 

dor), 5, 12 
d'Orbay, 29, 68, 74 
Due, Le, 73 

Ecouen, 28, 36 

Edelinck, 47 

Edict of Nantes, 44 

Errard, Charles, 73 

Essling, 49 

Etienne, 21 

Extraordinario Libro, 8 (Serlio) 



Federigo, Duke of Mantua, 7 ; Church 
of S. Andrea, Mantua, 12 

F&re-en-Tardenois, 28 

Florence, 101 

Fontainebleau, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 64 ; 
" Chappeau de Triomphe," 7 ; 
Gallery Fran9ois I, 6 ; St. Satur- 
nin, Chapel of, 16 ; Cour Henri 

IV, 42 

Fontana, Carlo, 69 

Fouquet, 61, 67, 79 

Fra Giocondo, 5 

Francois I, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 

23> 34, 32, 40, 43> 60 
Francis II, 24 

French Academy at Rome, 40, 65, 66 
Frescati, Chateau of (near Metz), 97 

Gabriel, Jacques Jules (father), 64, 74, 

103, 108-110 
Gabriel, Ange Jacques (son), 31, 74, 

103, 108-116, 119 
Gaillon, 10, 120 
Gaston, due d'Orteans, 49 
Germain FAuxerrois, St., 30, 33 
Gittard, 73 
Gobelins, 90 
Gobert, 73, 74 
Gondouin, 117 

Goujon, Jean, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, So 
Grand Cond6, 81 
Grappin, 9 
Guido Paganino, 5 
Guiffirey, Editor of Comptes des Bdti- 

ments du Rot, go 
Guise, 34 

Hampton Court, 7, 80 

H6r de Corny, Emmanuel, 103 

Henri II, 22, 23, 24, 32, 4O 

Henri IV, 36, 39, 4<>, 41, 42, 43, 5^, 

53, 59, 61, 64, 118 
Henry VII (of England) ; chapel at 

Westminster, 34 
Hermogenes, 70 

James of Greenwich, architect, 79 
Jesu, Church of the (Rome), 54 
Jones, Inigo, 71 
Justes, The, 6 

La Fl&che college, 54 

Larmes, 49 

La Rochelle, 106 ; Cathedral, no 

Laurana, 5 

Laval, Jean de, n 

le Brun, 52, 62, 64, 76 

Le Mans, Cathedral, 5 

Le Pautre, Anthoine, 73, 83 

Le Puy, 54 

Le Roux, 95 

Le Sourd, 119 

Leczinsky, Stanislas (titular king of 

Poland), 103 

Lemercier, Jacques, 45-46, 50, 51, 60 
Lemonnier, M., 15, 27 
Leonardo, 12 
Lepots, glass painters of Beauvais, 

Les Edifices Antiques de Rome, by 

Desgodetz, 95 

Lescot, Pierre, 27, 30, 32, 33, 34 
Lesdigui&res, 42 
Liencour, 44, 120 
Lille, 106 

Lorraine, Duke of, 103 
Louis XI, 4 
Louis XII, 6, 14 


Louis XIII, 43, 45, 46, 60, 61, 67, 76, 

85, in 
Louis XIV, 47, 52, 59, 60, 67, 73, 74, 

76, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 89, 90, 

91, 108, 109 

Louis XV, 53, 91, 106, 109, in, 112 
Louis XVI, 116 
Louis, Victor, 116 
Louvois, 8 1 
Luca Becjeane, 5 
Lunevflle, 100, 103, 104, 106 
Luxembourg, 44 
Lyons, 5* 8, 22, 54, 106 

Maintenon, Aqueduct of, 80, 84 
Maintenon, Madame de, 94 
Maisons, 48, 49, 67, 71 
Malgrange, 100 
Mansart, Francois, 31, 45, 46, 47, 48, 

49, 50, 51, 52, 58, 59, 63, 64, 66, 

67, 7i, 81, 103, 106 
Mansart, Jules Hardouin, 33, 47, 52, 

63, 64, 72, 73, 74, 82, 83, 84, 85, 

86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 94, 95, 96, 97, 

98, 102, 106, 109 
Marigny, 112, 113 
Marlborough, 94 
Marly, 84, 86, 87, 104, no, 120 
Marot, 44 

Martellange, Etienne, 54 
Mazarin, 59, 60, 61, 66, 67 
M&licis, Marie de, 43, 44 
Meissonnier, 99, 103 
Metezeau, Louis, 42 
Meudon, -23, 81, 120 
Mique, Richard, 116 
Mississippi Company, 102 
Mollet, Charles, 74, 77 
Monceaux, 44, 120 

Moulin's College, 54 ; Montmorency 

Chapel, 55 ; Bridge, 89 
Montespan, Madame de, 83 
Montfaucon, 10 
Montgomery, 24 
Montgomery Ducey, 43 
Montmorency, Anne, due de, 28, 55 
Montpellier, 95, 106 ; Porte de Pey- 

rou, 95 ; CMteau d'Eau, 95 ; 

Promenade de Peyrou, 105 
Montpensier, Mile de, 109 
Muet, Pierre le, 46 
Muette, la, 14, 120 
Munich ; Amalienburg, Nymphen- 

burg Palace, 99 

Nancy, 98, 100, 103, 104, 106, in, 
116 ; Place Royale, 103 ; H6tel 
de Ville, 104 ; Place de la Car- 
riere, 104 ; " Hemicycle," 104 ; 
H6tel de Tlntendance, 104 

Nantes, 89, 98, 106 

Naples, 5 

Napoleon, 87 

Nash, John, 90 

Nepveu, Pierre (dit Trinqueau), 9, 12 

Nevers ; St. Pierre, 55 

Nfcnes, 1 06 

Nineveh, 101 

Niort, Church of, 9, 20 

N6tre, Andre* le (fils), 63, 76, 77, 78, 
79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 109 

N6tre, Jean le, 76, 77 

Oppenord, 99, 103 
Orleans college, 54 

Palladio, 44 
Palissy, Bernard, 28 



Palustre, 4 

Pare aux Cerfs, 1 1 1 


Bois de Boulogne, 8 

Champs Elys6es, 112 

Chiteau de Madrid, 8, 14, 24, 36^ 

Church of the Dome, 87 

Church of the Visitation of Ste. 
Marie (Rue St. Antoine), 51 

ficole Militaire, 113 

Fontaine des Innocents, 33 

Hdtel Amelot, 98 

H6tel d'Argouge or Carnavalet, 50 

H6tel Davaux, 47 

Hdtel de Bretonvillers, 45 

Hdtel de Chevreuse, 47 

H6tel de 1'Aigle, 47 

Hdtel de la Monnaie, 1 17 

Hdtel de Mars (des Invalides), 73, 
87, 109 

H6tel de Petit Nesle, 40 ; Institut 
de France, 40 ; College des 
Quatre Nations, 67 

H6tel de Soissons (parish of St. 
Eustache), 30 

Hdtel de Soubise (Archives Nation- 
ales), 98, 99, 102 

Hdtel de Sully, 45 

Hdtel de Toulouse, 98 

Isle St. Louis, 45 

La Salpfctriere, Hospital, 73 

Louvre, 32, 35, 46, 49, 64, 65, 66, 67, 
68, 69, 70, 71, 83 ; Hall of the 
Caryatides, 33 ; Grand Gal- 
lery, 40, 42 

Madeleine, Church of the, 115 

Minimes, Church of the, 51 

Notre Dame, 22, 32, 96 

Od6on, 117 

Oratory, Church of, 45 


Palais de Justice, 44 

Palais Richelieu (Palais Royal), 46 

Place Dauphine, 41 

Place de la Concorde (Place Louis 
XV), 100, 105, 112 

Place des Victoires, 61 

Place du Pont Neuf, 41 

Place Royale (Place des Vosges), 41, 
51, 61, 105 

Pont Neuf, 35, 40, 41, 61 

Porte et Place de France, 41 

Porte St. Denis, 71, 72 

Porte St. Martin, 74 

St. Denis, 41 

St. Eustache, Church, 53 

Ste. Genevi&ve, transformed into 
the Panth6on, 115, 117 

St. Roch, Church of, 45 

St. Sulpice, 10*1 

Sorbonne, 45 

Tuileries, 25, 26, 29, 30, 42, 67, 76, 
77, 78, 112, 120 ; Salle des 
Machines, 101 

Venddme, Place, 88, 105 
Patte, Pierre, in, 116 
Perac, Etienne du, 42 
Percier and Fontaine, 117 
Perelle, 79 
Prigueux, 105 

Perrault, Charles, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72 
Perrault, Claude, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72 
Peruzzi, 12 
Peyre, J. M., 116 
Pierrefonds, 117 
Pointz in Champagne, 46 
Poissy, bridge at, 109 
Poitiers, Diane de, 23, 30 
Poitiers ; Lyc6e Henri IV, 54 
Pompadour, Madame de, no, in, 



Pontoise, 46, 109 
Poussin, Nicholas, 52 
Poppelsdorf Castle, 97 
Primaticcio, Francesco, 6, 7, n, 25 

Quatremere de Quincy, 113, 115 

Ravaillac, 39 

Regnauldin, 55 

Reims, 106, in 

Ren6 de Longueil, 49 

Rennes, 106, in ; Parliament House 

(now Palais de Justice), 44 
Revolution, The, 66, 113, 118 
Richer, 73 

Richelieu, 41, 45, 46, 48, S3, 6 
Rincy, 67 

Roanne College, 54 
Robbia, Jerome de la, 7, 8 
Robelin, 73 
Robert, Hubert, 101 
Rochefoucauld, la, n 
Ronsard, 21, 32, 35 
Rosny, 42 
Rosso, il, 6, n, 12 
Rouen, m ; Lyc6e Corneille, 54 

Saint Maur, 109 

Saint Simon, 33, 61, 82, 83, 84, 85, 89 

St. Bartholomew, 34 

St. Cloud, 120 

St. Cyr, 88 

St. Denis, 24, 28 

St. Germain TAuxerrois, 30 

St. Germain-en-Laye, 14, 24, 42 

St. Gervais, 44 

St. John Lateran, Order of, 101 

St. Maur-les-Foss6s, 23 

St. Paul's, London, 87 

St. Peter's, Rome, 54 

St. Saturnin, 16 

Sainte Croix, Cardinal de, 22 

Saintes, bridge at, 72 

Sarto, Andrea del, 12 

Saumur, 105 

Saverne, CMteau, 98 

Scamozzi, 44 

Scanderbeg, 101 

Sceaux, 81, 120 

Semblan9ay, de, 10 

Sens, 34 

Serlio, Sebastian, 6, 8, 12, 44 

Servandoni, 101 

Silvestre, 44 

Sologne, 12 

Soufflot, 115 

Spanish Succession, War of the, 94 

Strasbourg, 98 

Sueur, de, 76 

Sully, 39, 42 

Tanlay in Burgundy, 46 

Thomas, 50 

Tilloloy, 48 

Tournai Castle, 5 

Tours, 34, 105, 106 ; Cathedral, 6 

"Triad" (de 1'Onne, Bullant et 

Lescot), 30, 52 
Troyes, 34 
Trudaine, 106 ; Department of Fonts 

et Chausses, 106 
Turny, 67 

Ursins, Princesse des, 97 

Val-de-Grace, 46, 51, 54, 71 
Valenciennes, 106, in 



Valois, 35, 40 ; Chapel of the Valois, 

1 20 

Vanbrugh, 100 
Varangeville, 15 
Vasari, 6, 7 
Vast, Jean, 9 

Vau, Louis le, 29, 63, 66, 67, 68 
Vauban, 82 

Vaux-le-Vicomte, 62, 67, 78, 79 
Verdun, Bishop of, 97 
Verneuil, 35, 120 
Versailles, 64, 67, 76, 80, 84, 85, 86, 

88, 96, 102, 106, no, in ; 

Bassin d'ApoIlon, 80 ; Grand 

Trianon, 86 ; Orangery, The, 

95 J Cour de Marbre, in ; 

Salle de TOp6ra, in ; Petit 

Trianon, 113 
Vesoul College, 54 
Vienna, 102 

Vienne College, 54 
Vignola, 44 
Vignon, 117 

Villers-Cotterets, 12, 23, 24 
Viollet-le-Duc, 117 
Vitruvius, 5, 25 
ViziUe (Isfere), 4 2r 
Voltaire, 85 
Vouet, Simon, 76 

Winckelmann, 115 
Wood of Bath, 103 
Wren, Christopher, 71, 87 
Wrest, 80 

Wiirtemburg, Duke of, 102 
Wurzburg, 100 

Yerre Chateau, 24